TEEB for Agriculture & FoodInterim Report

A report by�The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity�

Cover photo: © Shutterstock

i

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)is a global initiative focused on “making nature’s values visible”. Its principal objective is to mainstream the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making at all levels. It aims to achieve this goal by following a structured approach to valuation that helps decision-makers recognize the wide range of benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity, demon-strate their values in economic terms and, where appropriate,

capture those values in decision-making.

DisclaimerThe contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views

or policies of UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The

designations employed and the presentations of material in this

report do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever

on the part of UNEP or contributory organisations, editors or

publishers concerning the mention of a commercial entity or

product, the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its

authorities, or concerning the delimitation or designation of its

frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name, frontiers

or boundaries.

Suggested citationTEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report,United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ii

STUDY LEADERAlexander Müller

REPORT DIRECTIONDanielle Nierenberg, Pavan Sukhdev and Heidi Wittmer

CHAPTER LEADSo Chapter 1: Barbara Gemmill-Herren and Dustin Millero Chapter 2: Sandy Andelman, Anne Bogdanski and Tomas Declercqo Chapter 3: Kavita Sharma

o Chapter 4: Salman Hussain

CHAPTER CONTRIBUTORSo Chapter 1: Fabrice Declerck, Lucas Garibaldi, Michael Hamm, Pete Myers and Wei Zhango Chapter 2: Georgina Catacora-Vargas and Richard Youngo Chapter 3: Haripriya Gundimeda, Felix Mittermayer, Carl Obst and Marieke Sasseno Chapter 4: Chris Baldock, Fabrice Declerck, Michael Hamm, Marieke Sassen, James Vause and

Wei Zhang

EDITORIAL TEAMDustin Miller (lead), Tomas Declercq, Salman Hussain, Kavita Sharma, Pavan Sukhdev and Heidi

Wittmer (with support from Andrew Buckwell and Molly Robbins)

GRAPHIC DESIGNPierluigi Rauco and David Díaz Martín

The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and direction provided by the members of the TEEBAgFood Steering Committee. A list of current members can be found here:www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/steering-committee.

The authors would also like to recognise the immensely useful contributions of nearly 100 experts toward developing the structure for this report at a workshop in Brussels from 8-11 September 2015.

TEEB is hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and ‘TEEB for Agriculture

& Food’ is supported by the European Commission and the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

FOREWORD

iii

The contribution of nature to agricultural productivity throughout the globe has not received the recognition it deserves. Global and national economic policies and programmes have for many years failed to fully acknowledge the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the global and national economies.

Rarely do we see the invaluable contributions of nutrient cycling, pollination, pest control and water flow from catchment areas reflected in national agricultural production accounts. This may be attributed to a wide range of reasons including the complexity of attaching monetary values to natural goods and services among others.

This initiative led by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) o6ce of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is a very welcome step towards influencing global and national perspectives on the complex interrelationship between agricultural productivity and availability of healthy biodiversity and ecosystems. It will also bring to the fore some of the chal-lenges increasing agricultural productivity poses to the environment, such as climate change and pollution and their attendant impacts on global and national economic and human well being.

I am fully convinced that the results of the initiative will greatly influence and raise the level of recognition and appreciation of these “invisible” values provided by nature. In turn, that recognition and appreciation will influence global discussions and decision making in di7erent sectors of the global economies.

It is my sincere hope that the initiative will be highly successful and will receive the support of all

relevant state and non state stakeholders.

Prof. Judi W. Wakhungu

CABINET SECRETARY

Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources & Regional Development

Authorities of Kenya

PREFACE

iv

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE WORLD�S FOOD SYSTEMS AND THE

CHALLENGES AHEAD

Why and how �The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity� (TEEB) can

contribute to the long-term sustainability of food for all

Our food systems are incredibly complex, diverse and interlinked by trade, climate and a host

of other factors that respect no borders. Today’s food systems range from local to global, from

subsistence agriculture to feed one’s own family to the global, high-volume trade in commodities.

Each food system is made up of di7erent production, processing and distribution elements. Our

consumption patterns are as diverse as our production systems and are influenced by culture, by

nutritional needs and by changing dietary preferences.

Food systems have been the subject of numerous analyses capturing certain elements of the

system and/or how the system is performing (and how this performance might be enhanced)

measured against certain criteria, such as fighting hunger, improving food security, climate change

mitigation, or reducing overall ecosystem impacts.

These research findings are filling libraries. Titles such as “The Poorest and Hungry”1, or the annual

“The State of Food and Agriculture”2 to “Food Security and Climate Change”3 and “Feeding Fren-

zy”4 and “SCN Reports on the World Nutrition Situation”5 constitute but a tiny fraction of the range

of publications available, and this list does not begin to cover the diversity of research conducted

in universities, or available in grey literature, all over the world.

Much of the research on our food systems express sustainability concerns in both the short term

and (even more) in the long term. Johan Rockström summarized the current alarming state of the

natural resource base of our economy thus, in an article in The Guardian: “As long as the Earth was

relatively large, with good resilience and ample abundance of resources, we could benefit from

subsidies from ample natural resources, a forgiving ecosystem and a stable climate. Ecosystems

provide fresh water, pollination, fertile soil and food. Indeed, the stability of the global climate over

the past 11,000 years, which geologists call the ‘Holocene’6, has been the foundation for our global

civilisation”. But human activities have led to a fundamental changes in our ecosystems and in-

deed, they are destabilizing our ecosystems. The latest assessment on the state of the biosphere

estimates that as a result of human activities, we have already crossed four planetary boundaries

(climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation and fertiliser use)7. And our current food systems

are part of the problem.

In light of this, we have started a new analytical work stream concentrating on what most as-

v

sessments to date have only partially addressed – if at all. “The Economics of Ecosystems and

Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food” (TEEBAgFood) identifies the values that well-functioning

biodiversity and ecosystems (‘natural capital’), skills & knowledge (‘human capital’), finance and

machinery (‘physical capital’) and societal interactions, relationships, formal and informal institu-

tions (‘social capital’) bring to our food systems, and how these systems depend on them. Equally,

it identifies the impacts of diverse food and agricultural systems on natural, human and social

capital stocks, which comprise the most significant parts of the wealth of nations8.

As a project, since 2009, TEEB has highlighted that nature provides human society with a vast

diversity of benefits such as food, fibres, clean water, healthy soil, carbon capture and many more9.

These benefits are called ‘ecosystem services’ and they - together with biodiversity - represent

the natural wealth of the Earth. They are our life support systems. Nothing short of our very exist-

ence depends on the continuing flow of these services. Technology can alter ecosystem services

and biodiversity but it cannot replace them.

Whereas TEEB has a wide, cross-sectoral mandate10, for TEEBAgFood we specifically want to

capture the values of ecosystems services and biodiversity across di7erent agricultural systems

where a variety of management practices are used. We look at the impacts arising from the pro-

duction, processing and distribution of food on natural and social capital, and analyse both the

health impacts of consumption patterns and the impacts of the systems on human health. The

true cost of producing one kilogram of wheat or one litre of milk can vary markedly from the price

we pay as consumers if we take into account the role of all ecosystem services and biodiversity

along the value chain. At the heart of this study, we are asking the question: are we paying the

correct price for our food? Sometimes we may be paying too little (as the economic system does

not capture the full range of public costs through negative impacts on natural and social capital),

and in other instances we may be paying too much.

TEEBAgFood will not merely take into account only the visible values of ecosystems and biodiver-

sity as they are captured in the price tags of our food. We want to also value the invisible costs and

benefits of food systems – both the provisioning of clean water and air (a positive value) and the

polluting of water and air (a negative value). Capturing the complexity of food systems, looking

at the positive and negative impacts, and analysing the visible and invisible inter-relations with

nature and society are at the centre of this study. Contrary to ‘putting a price on nature’, as some

have confused with TEEB, the goal is to examine more closely the implicit values of the services

that nature provides at zero or close to zero cost.

The discussions during the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals11 (SDGs) highlight-

ed the importance of changing our development pathways – which the international community

agreed to do. Agriculture and food systems are key for the transition towards the sustainability

of sectors in this regard. TEEBAgFood will present evidence on how di7erent production systems

vi

are based on ecosystem services, how they both depend upon and impact on natural and social

capital (in both a positive and negative way) and how they can contribute to the transformation

required and aspired to in the SDGs.

In this Interim Report, we present the first results of several exploratory studies as well as snap-

shots of selected production systems. The intention is to illustrate what di7erent food systems

look like, how interactions with the environment and society can be described and finally present

some preliminary and indicative value estimates of the use of social and natural capital in some

contexts. The new research outcomes quoted in this Interim Report largely concentrate on ag-

ricultural production systems (i.e. within the farm gate) but we also highlight the importance of

wider supply chain impacts on ecosystems and on human health.

After the publication of this report, i.e. in TEEBAgFood phase II, we will systematically value our

food systems from farm to fork (and indeed beyond to include waste management), i.e. beyond

primary production. As an analytical framework, we divide global food systems along the food

value chain as follows:

1. The interactions between people, nature, knowledge and technology in the agricultural sector

to produce food;

2. Production of food and distribution of the produce at local, regional and global scale; and

3. Consumption of food by humans and management of waste.

We know that each of the categories includes vast variability. In this Interim Report, we provide

an example (Chapter 2) for category (1), showcasing the diverse range of production systems

and processes that are employed by smallholder farmers in Asia to produce rice, and how real

positive and negative ecosystem impacts and dependencies (and thus real costs and benefits)

are linked to these systems and processes. This is not merely a theoretical exposition - it demon-

strates that the concepts developed in TEEB are also applicable to the analysis of real-world food

systems. We also set out striking examples from the exploratory studies (see Appendices) of how

a TEEBAgFood assessment can demonstrate options for simultaneously improving livelihoods

and reducing the impacts on ecosystems.

In Phase II of TEEBAgFood, we will not only look at other agricultural production systems (such

as mixed production systems) but also analyses beyond the farm gate: production, processing,

distribution, consumption and food waste, and both ecosystem health and human health impacts

and dependencies. We know that this will be very complex and challenging but we are convinced

that the long-term sustainability of our food systems requires such an integrated approach.

We also want to make clear that valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity does not mean

commodification or monetization or indeed privatization of nature, or of social assets. Just be-

vii

cause food has a price tag does not mean that all ecosystem services must have one. Indeed

many should not and cannot, such as the spiritual values that agricultural landscapes provide us.

These are real ecosystem services, they a7ect our wellbeing – in fact they can provide purpose to

our lives – but they will not have a Dollar price tag. They are included in our TEEBAgFood Frame-

work (Chapter 3) that provides a proposed methodology for capturing values to include all visible

and invisible value additions in decision-making for a sustainable future for all.

Alexander Müller

TEEBAgFood Study Leader

Photo: © Claudia Leisinger

1 Von Braun, J., Hill, R. & Pandya-Lorch, R. (2009) The Poorest and Hungry: Assessments, Analyses, and Actions: an IFPRI 2020 Book, International Food Policy Research Institute. 2 FAO (2015) The State of Food and Agriculture: Social protection and agriculture: breaking the cycle of rural poverty, Rome.3 High Level Panel of Experts (2012) Food security and climate change: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on FoodSecurity and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.4 McMahon, P. (2013) Feeding Frenzy: The New Politics of Food, Profile Books, London.5 UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (2004) 5th report on the world nutrition situation, Geneva.6 Zalasiewizc, J. (2015) ‘The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours’, The Guardian, 21 June.7 Rockström, J. (2015) ‘The planet’s future is in the balance. But a transformation is already underway’, The Guardian, 14 No-vember.8 World Bank (2006), Where is the wealth of nations - Measuring capital for the 21st century, World Bank, Washington DC. 9 TEEB (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: an interim report, European Communities.10 For more information, please visit www.teebweb.org.11 UN DESA (2015) ‘Sustainable Development Goals,’ Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, accessed on 18 Novem-ber 2015 [https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300].

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

Agriculture at the centre of human wellbeing and sustainable development1. Human history is inextricably tied to the development of agriculture. This tie has always been

about more than agriculture as a source of food for human sustenance; agriculture has influenced

our value systems, our cultural heritage, the structure and location of our communities, and the de-

velopment of other sectors in the economy. Agriculture is central to our lives.

2. Human well-being is a7ected by these disparate ties. We need su6cient quantities of food with

adequate nutritional value in order to survive – this is a fundamental physiological need, and this

human need is still not being met for a significant portion of the world’s poor, a central challenge

reflected in several of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, all of the other ties also reflect

elements of sustainability.

3. How we produce, distribute and consume food a7ects these ties and thus our well-being. Increas-

ingly however, the ties between food systems and human health, cultural heritage, and the impacts

that our production systems are having on nature have become largely invisible, or worse, severed

completely.

4. This invisibility can move us away from stewardship of our natural resources, to their unsustaina-

ble use, generating negative impacts for both present and future generations.

Agricultural systems and the provision of food and nutrition5. Food systems are producing more than enough calories to feed the world today. Since 1970, the

amount of food available for every person for direct consumption has increased from 2370 to 2770

kcal/person/day. In aggregate, there is su6cient food available for everyone to be fed, and nearly

everyone to be well-fed. That this is not happening points to systemic failure in equity and meeting

basic human needs.

6. Indeed, owing to problems of access and distribution, some 2.3 billion people in developing coun-

tries consume under 2,500 kcal/day (500 million of whom consume less than 2,000 kcal/day),

while 1.9 billion in developed countries are consuming more than 3,000 kcal/day. While many are

dying of want and starvation, others su7er from lifestyle diseases stemming from over-consump-

tion.

7. And this need not be so. Approximately one-third of the food produced in the world for human

consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted. If food waste

were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emis-

sions (3.3 billion tonnes).

ix

The role of women in the agricultural sector8. On average, women comprise 43 per cent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries;

this figure ranges from around 20 per cent in Latin America to 50 per cent in parts of Africa and

Asia, and exceeds 60 per cent in certain countries. Although largely restricted to growing food crops

and rearing poultry and livestock, women are responsible for 60 to 80 per cent of food production

in developing countries.

9. However, women only represent between five and 30 per cent of all agricultural landholders in

lower income regions.

10. If women had the same access to productive resources as men, FAO estimates that they could

increase yields on their farms by 20 to 30 per cent, raising total agricultural output in developing

countries by 2.5 to 4 per cent.

11. Closing the gender gap in terms of access to agricultural inputs alone could lift 100 to 150 million

people out of hunger.

The positive impacts of agriculture on human livelihoods12. As well as providing the food and sustenance we need, agriculture and food systems also create

employment and income. The sector employs one in three people of the world’s economically active

labour force, or about 1.3 billion people.

13. An estimated 2.5 billion people are involved in full- or part-time smallholder agriculture, while

over one billion people living in rural poverty are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. As

such, agriculture is the socio-economic backbone of rural landscapes. Smallholder farms (i.e. less

than 2 hectares) represent over 475 million of the world’s 570 million farms and, in many low in-

come countries, they produce over 80 per cent of the food consumed.

14. The agricultural sector does not produce only food - it also produces feed for animals (for human

consumption), fuel (both traditional fuels and modern biofuels) and fibre for artisanal and industrial

production. Thus the agricultural sector contributes inputs to many other industrial sectors.

15. The FAO estimates that about 500 million hectares around the world are dedicated to agricul-

tural heritage systems that still maintain their unique traditions with a combination of social, cultural,

ecological, and economic services that benefit humanity.

The impacts of our food consumption and production patterns on human health16. Globally, an estimated two billion people are experiencing micronutrient malnutrition. By contrast,

global levels of obesity have more than doubled since 1980. Recent estimates show that over 1.9

billion adults are overweight, 600 million of which are obese.

x

17. Vitamin A deficiency – the greatest preventable cause of needless childhood blindness and in-

creased risk of premature childhood mortality from infectious diseases – still a7ects 250 million

preschool children and a substantial proportion of pregnant women in lower-income countries.

18. In some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 per cent

by 2020 owing to climate change. This is likely to aggravate the burden of undernutrition in devel-

oping countries, which currently causes 3.5 million deaths each year, both directly through nutritional

deficiencies and indirectly by intensifying vulnerability to diseases such as malaria and diarrhoea,

and respiratory infections.

19. How we grow our food also impacts on human health via environmental factors. In Sumatra,

recent peat fires associated with clearing of agricultural land have forced the evacuations of infants

from the region with air quality indices remaining above 1000 for several weeks (>300 is deemed

dangerous).

20. While research on the health impacts from exposure to agrochemicals is limited, evidence is

starting to build. Recent research explores the health impacts of pesticides as ‘endocrine disrupting

chemicals’ (i.e. chemicals that interfere with hormones). In the EU alone, pesticide exposure causes

the highest annual health and economic costs at roughly $127 billion, almost four times as high as

the second highest category (plastics).

The impact of food consumption and production on ecosystems and biodiversity21. It is estimated that 52 per cent of land used for agriculture worldwide is moderately or severely

a7ected by land degradation and desertification.

22. Eutrophication has contributed to the creation of over 400 oceanic dead zones worldwide, pri-

marily concentrated in Europe, eastern and southern US, and Southeast Asia. In total, these zones

cover a total area of 245,000 square kilometres, or more than half the size of California.

23. Agriculture is thought to cause around 70 per cent of the projected loss of terrestrial biodiversity.

In particular, the expansion of cropland into grasslands, savannahs and forests contributes to this

loss.

24. Agriculture also makes positive contributions to nature, if well-managed. Sowing crops that

bloom in di7erent periods may increase wild-insect populations. In Sweden, bumble bee repro-

duction was improved in landscapes with both late-season flowering red clover and early-season

mass-flowering crops. As a result, an adequate proportion of cropland in heterogeneous landscapes

can be beneficial to some wild fauna taxa if appropriate crop management practices are adopted.

xi

We cannot manage what we do not measure25. There are many benefits provided by agriculture but also many costs. These benefits and costs

are often invisible in the sense that they are not traded in the market and do not have a market price.

But they do nonetheless impact on our wellbeing. All of these invisible as well as visible impacts will

need to be assembled and evaluated through a universal framework, in order to provide analytical

consistency and comparability across systems, across policies, and across business strategies.

26. These positive and negative impacts might be created by one agent in society but borne by oth-

ers, i.e. they are positive and negative ‘externalities’. The large negative externalities arising from our

eco-agri-food systems complex can be addressed by a range of regulatory reforms, policy reforms

including fiscal policies and incentives, and market-based mechanisms.

27. A universal, widely accepted framework for recognising, demonstrating and, where appropriate,

capturing the values of these externalities will play an important role in addressing this challenge.

Furthermore, to be comprehensive, all hidden costs and benefits of di7erent food systems must

be assessed in their entirety, both in terms of their life cycle and their impacts on all dimensions of

human well-being.

28. The full range of stakeholders will need to be involved in managing and reducing negative ex-

ternalities and increasing the provision of positive externalities: farmers, agri-businesses involved at

all stages of the value chain (in food processing, distribution and disposal), government entities (at

local, national, regional and international levels), and citizens.

29. The first step, however, is to categorize and measure these impacts and externalities, as we can-

not manage what we do not measure.

TEEB for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgFood) � changing the discourse on food systems30. The TEEBAgFood study is designed to provide a comprehensive economic evaluation of the

‘eco-agri-food systems’ complex, and demonstrate that the economic environment in which farm-

ers operate is distorted by significant externalities, both negative and positive, and a lack of aware-

ness of our dependency on nature.

31. The ‘eco-agri-food systems’ complex is a collective term encompassing the vast and interact-

ing complex of ecosystems, agricultural lands, pastures, fisheries, labour, infrastructure, technology,

policies, culture, traditions, and institutions (including markets) that are variously involved in growing,

processing, distributing and consuming food.

32. Operations within the entire agricultural value chain - production, processing, distribution, con-

sumption and waste – not only have impacts but also depend on the state of the environment,

xii

socio-economic well-being, and human health.

33. TEEBAgFood seeks to overcome the common practice of viewing ecosystems, agriculture and

food systems as distinct ´silos´. A selective analysis, not recognizing agriculture holistically, leads to

suboptimal decisions with far-reaching consequences.

Exploratory TEEBAgFood Interim Report studies34. TEEBAgFood has commissioned a series of exploratory studies that attempt to populate the

TEEBAgFood framework: livestock (dairy, poultry and beef production); rice; palm oil; inland fisher-

ies; agro-forestry; and maize.

35. Indicative results demonstrate that (i) it is possible to quantify and value a sub-set of the pos-

itive and negative impacts and externalities in the framework and (ii) in so doing, we can highlight

outcomes that both improve human livelihoods and also reduce impacts and dependencies on eco-

systems and biodiversity. As such, we have some of the theoretical building blocks for assessing the

‘true cost’ of food, including the impact of food production on human health and well-being.

36. Worldwide, around 80 million hectares of irrigated lowland rice provides 75 per cent of the

world’s rice production. This predominant type of rice system receives about 40 per cent of the

world’s total irrigation water and 30 per cent of the world’s freshwater resources withdrawn from the

natural cycle .

37. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) includes intermittent flooding, the transplanting of young

(8-10 day old) single rice seedling, and applying intermittent irrigation and drainage to maintain soil

aeration. In addition, the use of a mechanical rotary hoe or weeder is suggested under SRI to aerate

the soil and control weeds.

38. The rice study compared SRI with conventional production methods. In Senegal, the impacts

of water consumption under conventional systems was valued at US$801/ha as compared

with US$626/ha under SRI. Further, revenues per hectare are estimated to be higher under SRI

(US$2422/ha) versus conventional (US$2302/ha). Switching to SRI, society could save around $11

million/annum in water consumption related health and environmental costs in Senegal, and at the

same time the rice producing community would gain around US$17 million through yield increases.

39. This is one of many examples of win-win outcomes generated by our exploratory studies. In

other cases, the research highlights trade-o7s between categories of positive and negative impacts

and dependencies. The results are suggestive of additional insights that can be gained by widening

and deepening the lens.

xiii

TEEBAgFood Next Steps � lessons learned from the exploratory studies40. The exploratory studies commissioned by TEEBAgFood have led to the following suggestions

for further research:

a. Include all significant dependencies and impacts from biodiversity-agriculture linkages, as

critical elements in understanding the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity;

b. Typologies evaluated should include mixed systems, reflecting the full complexity and diversity

of smallholder agriculture, and suggestive of resilient production systems at larger scales; c. O7-farm dependencies and impacts to be included, taking the full ‘eco-agri-food’ value chain

as boundary, to inform our analysis;

d. Health impacts to be included - arising from unhealthy diets, or arising from agricultural im-

pacts on air quality, water quality, and vector-borne diseases, as important elements in tracing the

hidden costs of current production and consumption patterns;

e. The full gamut of impacts and externalities identified in the TEEBAgFood framework should

be applied across all major system typologies, developing and informing e7orts to identify ‘full

cost pricing’ of food.

Towards an engaged TEEBAgFood community41. This Interim Report has sketched out the myriad and inter-related factors that link agriculture,

food, and human well-being. It is a call for evidence and contributions, addressed to institutions and

experts (contributors, authors, reviewers, practitioners in policy and business, and civil society repre-

sentatives).

42. TEEBAgFood intends to commission and synthesize research that generates the complete pic-

ture, therein providing important evidence for policy interventions. By identifying various points in the

value chain where the most important impacts and dependencies between the di7erent systems

occur, TEEBAgFood has developed a robust analytical frame that can inform and influence policy

debates on food systems, and underlying relationships to ecosystems and biodiversity. It will also

make solutions towards sustainability more accessible, with the Sustainable Development Goals as

a possible policy ‘hook’.

43. At all levels -policy, corporate and individual- the economic invisibility of natural wealth and deg-

radation is influencing both the short and the long term sustainability of agriculture and food systems.

Therefore, TEEBAgFood foresees di7erent messaging for di7erent target groups and cross-sectoral

engagement of government, private, academic and civil society stakeholders. TEEBAgFood will aim

at gaining better engagement not only with the ‘unaware’, but also with ‘critics’.

44. The four guiding principles uniting this community are ‘quality’, ‘transparency’, ‘inclusion’, and

‘change’ with the overall objective being to better inform the management and stewardship of the

various components of the eco-agri-food systems complex.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

FOREWORD iii

PREFACE iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiv

GLOSSARY & KEY CONCEPTS xvi

LIST OF ACRONYMS xix

LIST OF BOXES xx

LIST OF FIGURES xxi

1 ECO-AGRI-FOOD SYSTEMS 1

What are �eco-agri-food systems�, and are they working? 1

Food security for all as a human right 1

Improving well-being and livelihoods 4

How does the eco-agri-food systems complex score overall? 11

2 MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE 17

The invisibility of nature in decision-making 17

Unpacking TEEBAgFood 17

A TEEBAgFood Showcase: Ecosystem services in smallholder rice production systems in Asia 20

Food 21

Raw materials 22

Genetic diversity 22

Habitat for species 23

Biological control 23

Freshwater 23

Cultural heritage 24

Measuring what we manage: the need for re-evaluation 24

3 EVALUATING COMPLEXITY: WHAT SHOULD WE VALUE AND WHY? 27

The Opportunity 29

The Challenges 29

Elements of the Valuation Framework 31

Valuation �Framework� versus �Approach� versus �Methodologies� 31

Beyond Economic Value-addition - Social value, resilience value, risks & uncertainties 34

Typology and Scale � recognizing diverse systems, reflecting real landscapes 35

Boundaries � life cycle approach and value chains 36

System Dynamics - modeling evolving policy & physical environments 37

xv

At a business level 39

At a national accounting level 40

And overall 40

4 FROM ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO SOLUTIONS FOR POLICY, FARMING, BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS 43

Taking stock: What have we learned from the exploratory studies? 47

Feedback loops: Ecosystem health-human health 50

Policy as a cause and catalyst for change 52

A call for the end of business-as-usual and the need to act now 59

How can TEEBAgFood contribute to change? 60

Commissioning and leveraging research on all aspects of the eco-agri-food systems

complex 60

Developing a TEEBAgFood Community of Practice: A call to get involved 61

Dissemination, outreach and communications through novel means 62

APPENDIX I Abstracts of TEEBAgFood exploratory studies 67

APPENDIX II Valuation of rice agro-ecosystems 73

APPENDIX III Livestock �bottom up� assessment 81

APPENDIX IV Ecosystem services and pastoralism in the Maasai Steppe 89

APPENDIX V Modelling agroforestry systems 93

GLOSSARY & KEY CONCEPTS

xvi

Agroforestry - a collective name for land-use systems in which trees and shrubs are grown in

association with crops and pasture and/or livestock, in a spatial arrangement, a rotation or both,

and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the tree and non-tree

components of the system

Biodiversity (biological diversity) - the variability among living organisms from all sources includ-

ing, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of

which they are part

Carbon sequestration - the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir other than the

atmosphere

‘Cultural’ ecosystem services - all the non-material, and normally non-consumptive, outputs of

ecosystems that a7ect people’s physical and mental states

Driver (direct or indirect) - any natural or human-induced factor that directly or indirectly causes

a change in an ecosystem

Eco-agri-food systems complex - a collective term encompassing the vast and interacting com-

plex of ecosystems, agricultural lands, pastures, fisheries, labour, infrastructure, technology, poli-

cies, culture, traditions, and institutions (including markets) that are variously involved in growing,

processing, distributing and consuming food

Ecological infrastructure - a concept referring to both the services provided by natural ecosys-

tems, and to nature within man-made ecosystems

Ecosystem - a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their

non-living environment interacting as a functional unit

Ecosystem service - the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being

(see also ‘Provisioning’, ‘Regulating and Maintenance’ and ‘Cultural’ ecosystem services)

Equity - fairness in the distribution of rights and of access to resources, services or power

Externality - a state where: (i) the actions of one economic agent in society impose costs or ben-

efits on other agent(s) in society; and (ii) these costs or benefits are not fully compensated for

and thus do not factor into that agent’s decision-making

Food security - a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and eco-

nomic access to su6cient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences for an active and healthy life

Human capital - people and their ability to be economically productive. Education, training, and

health care can help increase human capital

Human well-being - a context- and situation-dependent state, comprising basic material for a

good life, freedom and choice, health and bodily well-being, good social relations, security, peace

of mind, and spiritual experience

Landscape - an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and in-

teraction of natural and/or human factors

Market failure - a state in which markets fail to allocate the resources e6ciently and e7ectively,

for instance due to the existence of externalities or market power (monopolies) or public goods

xvii

Multiplier - the multiplier e7ect refers to an increase in final income arising from any new injec-

tion of spending

Natural capital - the limited stocks of physical and biological resources found on earth. Also

refers to the capacity of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services

Physical capital - the stock of value inherent in the quantity and quality of machinery, manufac-

tured goods and finance

Planetary boundaries - a series of biophysical thresholds for Earth systems, which can be defined

as a safe planetary operating space that will allow humanity to continue to develop and thrive

for generations to come

Precautionary principle - The precautionary principle permits a lower level of proof of harm to be

used in policy-making whenever the consequences of waiting for higher levels of proof may be

very costly and/or irreversible

‘Provisioning’ ecosystem services - all nutritional, material and energetic outputs from living systems

Public goods - a good or service in which the benefit received by any one party does not diminish

the availability of the benefits to others, and where access to the good cannot be restricted

‘Regulating and Maintenance’ ecosystem services - all the ways in which living organisms can

mediate or moderate the ambient environment that a7ects human performance

Resilience (of ecosystems) - their ability to function and provide critical ecosystem services un-

der changing conditions

Social capital - the value inherent in relationships and networks amongst people and institutions

that enables societies to function more e7ectively

Threshold/tipping point - a point or level at which ecosystems change, sometimes irreversibly,

to a significantly di7erent state, seriously a7ecting their capacity to deliver certain ecosystem

services

Tradeo$s - management choices that intentionally or otherwise change the type, magnitude, and

relative mix of services provided by ecosystems

Valuation, economic - the process of estimating a value for a particular good or service in a cer-

tain context (in monetary or non-monetary terms)

Value addition - the contribution of invisible and visible flows to human well-being through their

positive (or negative) impacts along the agricultural value chain

Value Chain (agriculture) - the agricultural value chain refers to the whole range of goods and

services necessary for an agricultural product to move from the farm to the final customer

xviii

Photo: ©James Whitesmith

LIST OF ACRONYMS

xix

AFOLU - agriculture, forestry and other land use

AKST - agricultural knowledge, science and

technology

AMR - antimicrobial resistance

CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity

CGIAR - the Consultative Group for International

Agricultural Research

CICES - Common Instrument for the Classification

of Ecosystem Services

CO2 - carbon dioxide

CRP - Conservation Reserve Program

DALY - disability-adjusted life year

EU - European Union

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations

GBD - Global Burden of Disease

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

GHG - greenhouse gas

GLEAM - Global Livestock Environmental

Assessment Model

GLOBIO - Global Methodology for Mapping

Human Impacts on the Biosphere

GM(O) - genetically modified (organism)

IAASTD - International Assessment of Agricul-

tural Knowledge, Science and Technology for

Development

IASS - Institute for Advanced Sustainability

Studies

ICRAF - World Agroforestry Centre

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change

IPM - integrated pest management

IRRI - International Rice Research Institute

Kcal - kilocalorie

Kg - kilogram

LUC - land-use change

MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MH4 - methane

MSA - mean species abundance

N - nitrogen

N2O - nitrous oxide

OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development

PAN - Pesticide Action Network

PES - payment for ecosystem services

PPP - purchasing power parity

QALY - quality-adjusted life year

REDD+ - Reducing Emissions from Deforesta-

tion and Forest Degradation

SDG - Sustainable Development Goal

SEEA - System of Environmental-Economic

Accounting

SLCP - (China’s) Sloping Land Conversion

Program

SNA - System of National Accounts

SRI - sustainable rice intensification

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and

Biodiversity

TEEBAgFood - The Economics of Ecosystems

and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food

UN - United Nations

UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme

UNEP-WCMC - United Nations Environment

Programme World Conservation Monitoring

Centre

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization

USD - US dollar (also US$)

WHO - World Health Organization

LIST OF BOXES

xx

Box 1.1

Box 1.2

Box 1.3

Box 1.4

Box 1.5

Box 1.6

Box 1.7

Box 2.1

Box 2.2

Box 2.3

Box 2.4

Box 3.1

Box 4.1

Box 4.2

Box 4.3

Box 4.4

Box 4.5

Box 4.6

Box 4.7

Box 4.8

Box 4.9

Food systems are producing more than enough calories to feed the world today

Is food security being achieved?

One-third of all food produced never reaches a plate

The large world of small farms

Women represent 43 per cent of farm labour in the developing world

Half of agricultural land is degraded

400 dead zones

TEEBAgFood Mission Statement

Ecosystem service types

Combined rice-and-farm fishing

From rice husk to pure drinking water

What is a ‘valuation framework’?

Summary of our recommendations

Modelling trade-o7s between potential future agriculture development and bio-

diversity and ecosystem services in the Andes, Mekong and African Great Lakes

Assessing impacts on human health

Pathways by which eco-agri-food systems impact human health

Market-based measures: removing perverse incentives

Market-based measures: ‘Payment for Ecosystem Service’ (PES) schemes

Institutional changes: Meeting the Aichi targets

Information-provision on the supply-side: Investing in appropriate ‘agricultural

knowledge, science and technology’ (AKST)

Information-provision on the demand-side: Eco-labelling as a means to provide

access to market

2

2

2

4

5

8

9

18

20

21

22

27

44

49

50

53

54

55

56

57

58

LIST OF FIGURES

xxi

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

Average change in the calories from crops in national diets worldwide, 1961-2009

Share of male and female agricultural holders in main developing regions

Percentage of global population that is overweight or obese (today and in 2030) and

its economic impact

Health e7ects from endocrine disrupting chemicals cost the US$167 billion each year

GHG emissions from global livestock supply chains, by production activities and

products

Eco-agri-food systems complex – impacts and dependencies

The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production

TEEBAgFood Valuation Framework

Four applications of valuation supported by one universal “Valuation Framework”

Geographical coverage of the exploratory studies

Di7erence between domestic production and demand for meat products in

Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam between 2005 and 2050 for the Land of

the Golden Mekong regional scenario (most positive scenario modelled using

IMPACT)

3

5

6

7

11

18

19

28

32

46

49

Chapter 1

1

What are �eco-agri-food systems�, and are they working?Food is the ultimate source of energy and nutrients for every human, and is the basis for agri-

cultural production around the world. Agricultural production systems link human diets to inputs

used in agricultural production, to the diverse types and quantities of food (and feed), fuel and fi-

bres produced, to the types of management and land use systems that produce them, to how they

are processed, stored and transported to consumers, to how they are regulated and where they

ultimately end up. From start to finish, these systems can be envisioned as intertwined threads

that tie the health of the environment to the health of people1.

The ‘eco-agri-food systems’ complex is a collective term for the fabric woven from these many

system threads, encompassing the vast and interacting complex of ecosystems, agricultural lands,

pastures, fisheries, labour, infrastructure, technology, policies, culture, traditions, and institutions

(including markets) that are variously involved in growing, processing, distributing and consuming

food.

Having set out what the eco-agri-food systems complex is, how can we determine whether or not

it is functioning well?

The primary purpose of the eco-agri-food systems complex can be broken down into three broad

objectives: (I) to ensure food security for all; (II) to improve social, economic and cultural well-being

and secure over a billion livelihoods; and (III) to not compromise our ability to satisfy the needs of

future generations2. We comment on each objective in turn.

Food security for all as a human right

One common metric for food security3 is to consider the physical availability of food, which is

related to levels of food production and supply, stock levels and net trade. Box 1.1 highlights the

success of food production systems in meeting this objective.

ECO-AGRI-FOOD SYSTEMS

Photo: ©Shutterstock

2

However, food security should also look beyond the supply side, and consider dimensions of eco-

nomic and physical access to food, food utilization, and their stability over time5. These considera-

tions reveal a very di7erent reality of food security in the world (see Box 1.2), illustrating that food

security is not simply a matter of producing enough calories per capita, but is much more deeply

rooted in our social, economic and political systems.

Box 1.1 Food systems are producing more than enough calories to feed the world today4

o Since 1970, the amount of food available for every person for direct consumption has increased

from 2370 to 2770 kcal/person/day.

o In aggregate, there is su6cient food available for everyone to be fed, and nearly everyone to be

well-fed.

o However, owing to problems of access and distribution, some 2.3 billion people in developing

countries live with under 2,500 kcal/day (500 million of which live with less than 2,000 kcal/

day), while 1.9 billion in developed countries are consuming more than 3,000 kcal/day.

Box 1.2 Is food security being achieved?

o Globally, an estimated two billion people are experiencing micronutrient malnutrition6, and 794

million people are calorie-deficient7.

o In contrast, global levels of obesity have more than doubled since 1980. Recent estimates show

that over 1.9 billion adults are overweight, 600 million of which are obese8.

o Vitamin A deficiency – the greatest preventable cause of needless childhood blindness and in-

creased risk of premature childhood mortality from infectious diseases – still a7ects 250 million

preschool children and a substantial proportion of pregnant women in lower-income countries9.

Food security also depends on what proportion of the food that is produced is actually consumed

(see Box 1.3).

Box 1.3 One-third of all food produced never reaches a plate

o Approximately one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year

— approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted10.

o An FAO report claims that, if food waste were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in

the world in terms of GHG emissions (3.3 billion tonnes)11.

3

It is increasingly recognized that a food system must also nourish - that is, provide a healthy, nutri-

tional and well-balanced diet - and not simply supply minimum levels of energy. In an increasingly

globalized world, in which a rising share of the population is becoming urban and middle class,

and per capita income and consumption levels are rising, consumer demand for ‘higher valued

foods’ (such as meat, dairy, processed food and food consumed away from home)12 is increasing

worldwide, with disastrous consequences for human health (see ‘Physical health considerations’

below).

Figure 1.1 illustrates another important global trend in the growing contribution of a few major oil

crops to diets, and the falling share of regionally important staples. This is a trend that is impact-

ing health in rapidly developing countries more quickly than projected13, given that these local

food crops are often more nutritious and better adapted to grow in local conditions14.

Figure 1.1 Average change in the calories from crops in national diets worldwide, 1961-2009

Source: Khoury, C.K. et al. (2014) ‘Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security’, Pro-

ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11): 4001-4006.

4

In summary, there is a significant risk that the current food system may soon be unable to provide

both adequate and nutritious food to the global population.

Improving well-being and livelihoods

Measuring human well-being has long been discussed and debated15,16, and that is not the in-

tention of this chapter. However, for the sake of simplicity, it is possible to divide well-being into

socio-economic (employment, income), cultural and physical health considerations.

Socioeconomic dimensions

The agricultural sector employs over one billion people worldwide, representing one in three of

all economically active workers17. In most low- and middle-income countries, agriculture remains

the largest employer of the poor and is a major source of livelihoods through wage labour and

production for household consumption and markets18.

Family and smallholder farms are the predominant form of agriculture in the food production

sector, but the vast majority of them are small (see Box 1.4) and poor. Indeed, agriculture and rural

poverty are closely linked. While the rural poor are more likely than other rural households to rely

on agriculture, output per worker is valued much lower in agriculture than in other sectors, result-

ing in low incomes for people who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods19.

Box 1.4 The large world of small farms

o Family farms, i.e. those that are managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on

family labour, make up more than 90 per cent of the world’s farms20.

o Family farms also occupy approximately 70 to 80 per cent of farmland, and are estimated to

produce about 80 per cent of the world’s food21.

o In lower-income countries, an estimated 84 per cent of farms (or 475 million farms) are ‘small-

holder farms’, i.e. smaller than two hectares22.

o An estimated 2.5 billion people are involved in full- or part-time smallholder agriculture, while

over one billion people living in rural poverty are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods23.

The role of women in agriculture, particularly in developing countries, is also one that deserves

more positive attention, particularly with regard to the social and economic opportunities for clos-

ing the gender gap. Women comprise on average 43 per cent of farm labour in the developing

world24, whilst owning a tiny fraction of farms. Women also regularly face discrimination in rights

and access to resources and support for farms.

These inequities are among the major gender-relative negatives (see Box 1.5) characterizing the role

and fortunes of women in agriculture today, despite their central role in household welfare around

the world. Indeed, empowering women in agricultural households has been demonstrated to not

only improve farm productivity, but also produce wider benefits in improved health, nutrition and

education outcomes25.

5

Box 1.5 Women represent 43 per cent of farm labour in the developing world

o On average, women comprise 43 per cent of the agricultural labour force in developing coun-

tries; this figure ranges from around 20 per cent in Latin America to 50 per cent in parts of

Africa and Asia, and exceeds 60 per cent in certain countries26.

o Although largely restricted to growing food crops and rearing poultry and livestock, women are

responsible for 60 to 80 per cent of food production in developing countries27.

o However, women only represent between five and 30 per cent of all agricultural holders in

main developing regions (see Figure 1.2).

o If women had the same access to productive resources as men, FAO estimates that they could

increase yields on their farms by 20 to 30 per cent, raising total agricultural output in developing

countries by 2.5 to 4 per cent28.

o Closing the ‘gender gap’ in terms of access to agricultural inputs alone could lift 100 to 150

million people out of hunger29.

Figure 1.2 Share of male and female agricultural holders in main developing regions

Source: FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture: women in agriculture - closing the gender gap for development, Rome.

6

Cultural dimensions

Agriculture and food are an integral part of our heritage and cultural landscapes, and key to cul-

tural identity. The underpin community values, festivity, social cohesion and tourism; agricultural

landscapes are a location and source of recreation and mental/physical health, providing at times

spiritual experience and a reinvigorating sense of place.

FAO estimates that about 500 million hectares around the world are dedicated to agricultural

heritage systems that still maintain their unique traditions with a combination of social, cultural,

ecological and economic services that benefit humanity30.

Physical health considerations

Both agricultural production and consumption are directly linked to human health impacts.

While malnutrition and obesity have been mentioned, there is more to be said on the public health

(as opposed to food security) dimension. For example, malnutrition is the cause of death for 3.1

million infants and young children every year, largely due to their high nutritional requirements for

growth and development. This statistic accounts for 45 per cent of all deaths among children under

the age of five, while malnutrition also leads to stunted growth among a further 165 million31.

Overweight conditions and obesity, on the other hand, are major risk factors for cardiovascular

diseases (mainly heart disease and stroke), which were the leading cause of death in 2012, as well

as diabetes and some cancers32. As illustrated in Figure 1.3, it is projected that, by 2030, the global

economic impact of obesity will be US$2 trillion in health costs (2.8 per cent of GDP), equivalent

to that of smoking, war and terrorism33.

Figure 1.3 Percentage of global population that is overweight or obese (today and in 2030) and

its economic impact

Source: Dobbs, R. et al. (2014) Overcoming obesity: an initial economic analysis - discussion paper, McKinsey Global Institute.

7

Health impacts are also a cause for concern on the production side of eco-agri-food sys-

tems, usually through exposure to agricultural chemicals or the use of antibiotics.

While research on the health impacts from exposure to agrochemicals is limited, evidence

is starting to build. Recent research explores the health impacts of pesticides as ‘endocrine

disrupting chemicals’ (i.e. chemicals that interfere with hormones). The results in Figure

1.4 show that, in the EU alone, pesticide exposure causes the highest annual health and

economic costs at roughly US$127 billion, almost four times as high as the second highest

category: plastics (which is also linked to eco-agri-food systems through the storage of

edible goods)34.

Figure 1.4 Health e$ects from endocrine disrupting chemicals cost the US$167 billion each year

Source: New York University Langone Medical Center (2015), accessed on 18 November 2015 [https://www.endocrine.org/news-room/current-press-releases/estimated-costs-of-endocrine-disrupting-chemical-exposure-exceed-150-billion-annu-ally-in-eu].

Indeed, pesticides by their very nature are designed to be toxic, either to herbs, insects or fungi.

However, the vast majority is distributed into the environment and the food chain, where they

come into direct contact with humans.

Through direct and indirect exposure, an estimated 20,000 unintentional deaths occur every year

as a result of pesticide poisoning35, while causing acute adverse health impacts to anywhere be-

tween 1 and 41 million people36.

8

The agricultural sector is also the world’s largest user of antibiotics, estimated to use 70 per cent

of all that is manufactured globally37. This use of antibiotics is suspected to create resistant strains

of microbes in humans, posing serious threats to human health. For example, in the US alone, two

million people each year develop antimicrobial resistant (AMR) infections, killing at least 23,000

people and incurring treatment costs of around US$20 billion on top of costs to society for lost

productivity that are as high as US$35 billion a year, totalling US$55 billion per annum38.

The needs of future generations are an integral part of the concept of sustainability. Today

humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets (or 18 billion global hectares) to provide the re-

sources we use and absorb our waste39. As humans continue to cause irreversible damage

to our biosphere and place unsustainable demands on the natural resources on which future

food security depends, we bring into question the ability of our planet to accommodate hu-

mans and human actions.

In order for modern agriculture to become sustainable, it is imperative to preserve the natu-

ral resource base - including land, water, and biodiversity - as well as account for the contri-

bution of agriculture to climate change.

Soils and land productivity

The year 2015 is the UN International Year of Soils. Soils are the basis for more than 90 per

cent of food production40, and yet every year, approximately 24 billion tonnes of fertile soil

are lost due to erosion41. It is estimated that fertile soils can take hundreds, even thousands,

of years to generate42, which highlights the fact that current practices quickly become

unsustainable.

Soils provide a critical service by storing more than 4000 billion tonnes of carbon whereas,

by contrast, forests and the atmosphere store only 360 and 800 billion tonnes, respectively43.

As a result of land conversion for crop production, carbon and nitrogen are lost from the

soil, which can lead to substantial reductions in the role of soil as a methane sink44. More-

over, the loss of carbon and nitrogen also reduces soil organic matter, particularly humus,

which greatly increases the water retention properties of soil45, natural disease resistance in

crops46 and total yield potential47.

Directly linked to soils is the question of land productivity. Due to severe land degradation

(see Box 1.6) in developing countries over the past fifty years, usually in the form of increased

Box 1.6 Half of agricultural land is degraded

It is estimated that 52 per cent of land used for agriculture worldwide is moderately or severely

a7ected by land degradation and desertification48.

9

salinization of soil, nutrient depletion and erosion, the productivity of lands has decreased

by as much as 50 per cent49. As a result, it is further estimated that some 50 million peo-

ple may be displaced within the next ten years50.

In contrast, several farming techniques and management practices exist that have proven

to reverse these processes, for example by regenerating soil structure and attracting ben-

eficial organisms within the soil food web.

Water

Irrigated agriculture currently draws 70 per cent of all water globally withdrawn from rivers

and aquifers, despite the fact that rainfed agriculture is the predominant form of agricul-

ture worldwide51. With food demand expected to continue to rise, global water demand is

projected to increase by 55 per cent by 205052.

Nutrient pollution into water sources is arguably one of the most impactful consequences

of agricultural systems, occurring primarily as a result of large increases in the use of fer-

tiliser and manure, both of which are rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. The biogeochem-

ical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus have been identified as one of the nine planetary

boundaries that indicate safe operating spaces for humanity. They comprise two of three

boundaries considered to be ‘high risk’53.

When excess amounts of these nutrients flow into nearby water sources due to run-o7 and

wastewater discharge, a process known as ‘eutrophication’ occurs. This is when nutrients

provide a food source for blooms of blue-green algae (‘cyanobacteria’) that, as they die and

decompose, deplete water of oxygen and slowly choke aquatic life, creating ‘dead zones’

(see Box 1.7).

Biodiversity

The conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land has major implications for biodiver-

sity. As noted in the recent Global Biodiversity Outlook 455, agriculture is thought to cause

around 70 per cent of the projected loss of terrestrial biodiversity. In particular, the expan-

sion of cropland into grasslands, savannahs and forests contributes to this loss.

An estimated 60 to 70 per cent of global terrestrial biodiversity loss is related to food

production, while ‘regulating and maintenance’ ecosystem services are under pressure56.

Moreover, recent reviews have highlighted how land use change leads to a decline in bi-

Box 1.7 400 dead zones54

Eutrophication has contributed to the creation of over 400 oceanic dead zones worldwide, pri-

marily concentrated in Europe, eastern and southern US, and Southeast Asia. In total, these zones

cover an area of 245,000 square kilometres, or greater than half the size of California.

10

odiversity, including wild pollinators such as bees, flies, beetles, and butterflies57. Such en-

vironmental degradation can constrain the amount and stability of crop yield, which are

essential components of human food security58. Indeed, land use change already has re-

duced the capacity of many ecosystem services to support human activity59, including

crop pollination and the yield of pollinator-dependent crops60.

Apart from providing biomass in the form of food, feed, fuel and fibre, agriculture provides

a variety of ‘regulating and maintenance’ services to the environment. Pollination, for ex-

ample, is a crucial ecosystem service for crop production. Although crops can provide

abundant resources to wild insect pollinators, the short duration of floral availability, the low

diversity of resources, the application of insecticides, and the presence of tillage may limit

the capacity of one crop species to support wild pollinator populations on its own61. There-

fore, sowing crops that bloom in di7erent periods may increase wild-insect populations.

For example, in Sweden, bumble bee reproduction was improved in landscapes with both

late-season flowering red clover and early-season mass-flowering crops62. As a result, an

adequate proportion of cropland in heterogeneous landscapes with proper crop manage-

ment can be beneficial to some wild fauna taxa63.

Climate change

Agriculture accounts for around 22 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)64.

Within agriculture, the most emissions are caused by the livestock sector, which contrib-

utes 40 per cent of that total (roughly 14.5 per cent of total global GHG emissions), mostly

in the form of methane (MH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

In terms of activities within the livestock sector, Figure 1.5 displays the two main sources

of emissions within livestock: (A) ‘feed production’ including processing, transport and land

use change (LUC); and (B) ‘livestock production’ including enteric fermentation (digestion

and belching from ruminants), manure storage and processing, and energy consumption

related to manufacturing. Feed production accounts for 45 per cent of the total from live-

stock, while livestock production accounts for 50 per cent, 80 per cent of which comes

from enteric fermentation alone65.

Under ‘business-as-usual’, global temperatures are projected to gradually increase up to

3.5°C higher by 2100 from climate change66, with potentially dire consequences on ag-

ricultural production. For example, not only might crop yields be negatively impacted, but

levels of carbon stored in the soil could be reduced as a result of faster decomposition

and fewer inputs from shortened crop lifecycles. Moreover, land cover types like planta-

tions and others with lower levels of biodiversity are expected to su7er more from climate

change impacts due to lower resilience.

11

How does the eco-agri-food systems complex score overall?While recognizing the centrality of agriculture and food to human well-being and sustain-

able development, essentially every statement on the future of agriculture acknowledges

that a transformation is needed in the way the sector operates and how it impacts on the

environment, human health and culture even if and while production is increased to meet

food security needs67, 68, 69, 70.

Another challenge facing current agricultural systems is that, in many parts of the devel-

oping world, conventional high-input agriculture has not – and has little chance – to take

Figure 1.5 GHG emissions from global livestock supply chains, by production activities

and products

Source: FAO, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM).

12

hold. In such regions, resource-poor farmers contend with issues of marginal high-risk

environments, and experience poor yields just where food security is most vulnerable. The

agricultural research establishment has only recently begun to focus increasingly on such

sites, and to recognize that highly site-specific resource management systems are needed

to sustain productivity under these conditions71.

Yet the approaches which can address both the heavy negative impacts of conventional

production systems and the challenges of resource-poor farmers have a central common

thread: they recognize that agriculture and food systems of all kinds are biological and

social systems. They can be designed to build upon and harness the forces of biodiversity

and ecosystem services such that the processes that underpin agricultural production - soil

fertility, natural pest control, pollination, water retention - are optimized and encouraged.

This applies to all systems.

A report72 on a “Biosphere Smart Agriculture in a True Cost Economy: Policy Recommen-

dations to the World Bank” states:

“In the face of a rapidly overheating climate, collapsing fisheries, degraded soil, depleted

water resources, vanishing species, and other challenges directly related to agriculture, we

can no longer a$ord to pursue a flawed accounting system.”

In summary, there are evidently many opportunities for re-evaluation and reform, along

many dimensions of our agricultural systems. But we ‘cannot manage what we do not

measure’, and that points to our first task: how do we evaluate the complexity of these

systems in a manner which is universal, holistic and fair, enabling comparisons and choices to

be made and responses to be optimized in a truly informed manner? As a step towards a

framework for such evaluations, it is first important to understand the many invisible flows

within the eco-agri-food systems complex, which are discussed and illustrated with an

important showcase in Chapter 2.

1 Tillman, D. & Clark, M. (2014) ‘Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health’, Nature, 515, 518-522.2 DeSchutter, O. (2010) Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council, United Nations General Assembly.3 At the World Food Summit in 1996, food security was described to exist when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to su6cient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.4 Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. (2012) ‘World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. Rome, FAO.5 FAO (2008) ‘An introduction to the basic concepts of food security’, EC-FAO Food Security Programme.6 WHO (2015) ‘Micronutrient Deficiencies’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [www.who.int/nutrition/topics/ida/en/].

13

7 FAO (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome.8 WHO (2015) ‘Obesity and overweight – fact sheet no. 311’, accessed on 18 November 2015, [ http://www.who.int/mediacen-tre/factsheets/fs311/en/]. 9 WHO ‘Micronutrient deficiency’, accessed on 18 November 2015, [http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/]. 10 FAO (2013) ‘Food wastage footprint: impacts on natural resources - summary report’, Rome.11 Ibid.12 Regmi, A. & Meade. B. (2013) ‘Demand side drivers of global food security’, Global Food Security, 2(3), 166-171.13 Kearney J. (2010) ‘Food consumption trends and drivers’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Bio-logical Sciences, 365(1554) 2793–2807.14 Khoury, C.K., Bjorkmanc, A., Dempewolfd, H., Ramirez-Villegasa, J., Guarinof, L., Jarvisa, A., Riesebergd, L. & Struik, P. (2014) ‘Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 4001-4006.15 Daly, H. & Cobb, J. (1989) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, Environment, and a Sus-tainable Future, Beacon Press: Boston. 16 Sen, A. (2004) ‘Capability and well-being’, in Nussbaum, M. & Sen, A., The quality of life, New York: Routledge.17 FAO (2013) Statistical Yearbook 2013: World Food and Agriculture, Rome.18 FAO (2014) The State of Food and Agriculture 2014: innovation in family farming, Rome.19 Ibid.20 FAO (2014) ‘Family farmers: feeding the world, caring for the earth’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/270462/].21 Ibid.22 FAO (2014) The State of Food and Agriculture 2014: innovation in family farming, Rome.23 IFAD/UNEP (2013) ‘Smallholders, food security and the environment’, Rome.24 FAO (2011) ‘The role of women in agriculture’, ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, Rome.25 FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture: women in agriculture - closing the gender gap for development, Rome.26 FAO (2011) ‘The role of women in agriculture’, ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, Rome.27 FAO (2009) ‘Women and rural employment: fighting poverty by redefining gender roles’, Economic and Social Perspectives Policy Brief 5, Rome.28 FAO, ‘Men and women in agriculture: closing the gap - key facts’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.fao.org/sofa/gender/key-facts/en/]. 29 FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture: women in agriculture - closing the gender gap for development, Rome.30 FAO (2013) ‘Accenting the culture in agriculture’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/giahs_assets/Information_Resources_Annexes/Success_stories/FAO_Publication_-_Partnering_for_Results._Ch_9_Accent-ing_the_Culture_in_Agriculture_GIAHS_.pdf].31 Black, R., Victora, C., Walker, S., Bhutta, Z., Christian, P., de Onis, M., Ezzati, M., Grantham-McGregor, S., Katz, J., Martorell, R. & Uauy, R. & the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group (2013) ‘Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-in-come and middle-income countries’, The Lancet, 382(9890), 427-451.32 WHO (2015) ‘Obesity and overweight – fact sheet no. 311’, accessed on 18 November 2015, [ http://www.who.int/media-centre/factsheets/fs311/en/]. 33 Dobbs, R., Sawers, C., Thompson, F., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Child, P., McKenna, S. & Spatharou, A. (2014) ‘Overcoming obesity: an initial economic analysis - discussion paper’’, McKinsey Global Institute.34 Trasande L., Zoeller, R., Hass, U., Kortenkamp, A., Grandjean, P., Myers, J., DiGangi, J., Bellanger, M., Hauser, R., Legler, J., Skakke-baek, N. & Heindel, J. (2015) ‘Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the Euro-pean Union’, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 100(4), 1245-55.35 WHO (2003) The world health report 2003 – shaping the future, Geneva.36 PAN (2010), Communities in Peril: global report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture, Manila.37 WHO (2014) Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance, Geneva.38 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014) Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013, Atlanta.39 Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A. & Wackernagel, M. (2010) Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, Global Footprint Network, Oakland.40 IASS (2014) ‘Fertile soils: fundamental in the struggle against hunger and climate change!’, Potsdam.41 UNCCD, ‘Desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD) - some global facts & figures’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/WDCD/DLDD%20Facts.pdf].42 Henrich Böll Foundation and Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)(2015) Soil Atlas 2015 - Facts and figures

14

about earth, land and fields, Berlin and Potsdam.43 IASS (2014) ‘Fertile soils: fundamental in the struggle against hunger and climate change!’, Potsdam.4

44 Nazaries, L., Murrell, J., Millard, P., Baggs, L. & Singh, B. (2013) ‘Methane, microbes and models: fundamental understanding of the soil methane cycle for future predictions’, Environmental Microbiology, 15, 2395-2417.45 Acharya, M., Rauchecker, M. & Wei, W. (2014) ‘Determination of water absorption and water holding capacities of di7erent soil mixtures with MINIDRAIN system to enhance the plant growth’, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 14th EGU General Assembly 2014.46 Dordas C. (2008) ‘The role of nutrients in controlling plant diseases in sustainable agriculture: a review’, Agronomy for Sus-tainable Development, 28, 33-46.47 Johnston, A., Poulton P. & Coleman, K. (2009) ’Soil organic matter: its importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide fluxes’, in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 101 (edited by Sparks D.), Academic Press: Burlington.48 Economics of Land Degradation (ELD)(2015) The value of land, quick guide to the report, Bonn.49 Bai, Z. (2008) ‘Proxy global assessment of land degradation’, Soil Use and Management, 24(3), 223-234.50 UN, ‘Desertification’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml]. 51 UN World Water Assessment Programme (2014) The United Nations World Water Development Report 2014: Water and Energy, UNESCO: Paris.52 Ibid.53 Ste7en, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., de Vries, W., de Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. & Sörlin, S. (2015) ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science, 347(6223).54 Diaz, R.J. & Rosenberg, R. (2008) ‘Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems’, Science, 321(5891), 926-929.55 CBD (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4: a mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, Montréal.56 Kok, M. & Alkemade, R. (2014) ‘How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity’, CBD Tech-nical Series No. 79.57 Vanbergen, A.J. & the Insect Pollinators Initiative (2013) ‘Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 251-259.58 Schmidhuber, J. & Tubiello, F. (2007) ‘Global food security under climate change’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703-19708.59 Foley, J., DeFries, R., Asner, G., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S., Chapin, S., Coe, M., Daily, G., Gibbs, H., Helkowski, J., Holloway, T., Howard, E., Kucharik, C., Monfreda, C., Patz, J., Prentice, C. Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P. (2005) ‘Global consequences of land use’, Science, 309(5734), 570-574.60 Garibaldi, L., Carvalheiro, L., Leonhard, S., Aizen, M., Blaauw, B., Isaacs, R., Kuhlmann, M., Kleijn, D., Klein, A., Kremen, C., Morandin, L., Scheper, J. & Winfree, R. (2014) ‘From research to action: enhancing crop yield through wild pollinators’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(8), 439-447.61 Ibid.62 Rundlöf, M., Persson, A., Smith, H. & Bommarco, R. (2014) ‘Late-season mass-flowering red clover increases bumble bee queen and male densities’, Biological Conservation, 172, 138–145.63 Garibaldi, L., Carvalheiro, L., Leonhard, S., Aizen, M., Blaauw, B., Isaacs, R., Kuhlmann, M., Kleijn, D., Klein, A., Kremen, C., Morandin, L., Scheper, J. & Winfree, R. (2014) ‘From research to action: enhancing crop yield through wild pollinators’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(8), 439-447.64 Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N., Rice, C., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F. & Tubiello, F. (2014) ‘Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU)’, in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change - Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Edenhofer, O. et al., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York.65 Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities, FAO, Rome.66 IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Bonn. 67 Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J., Johnston, M., Mueller, N., O’Connell, C., Ray, D., West, P., Balzer, C., Bennett, E., Carpenter, S., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. & Zaks, D. (2011), ‘Solu-tions for a cultivated planet’, Nature, 478, 337-342.68 Godfray, H., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. & Toulmin, C. (2010) ‘Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people’, Science, 327(5967): 812-818.69 IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads: global report, Island Press: Washington DC.

15

70 Royal Society London (2009) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, The Royal Society: London.71 Altieri, M.A. (2002) ‘Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 1971, 1–24.72 Imho7, D. (2015) ‘Biosphere Smart Agriculture in a True Cost Economy: Policy Recommendations to the World Bank’ (p. 5), Foundation Earth and Watershed Media, Washington, DC & Healdsburg.

16

Photo: ©Dustin Miller

Chapter 2

17

MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE

The invisibility of nature in decision-makingThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), in its earlier work, highlighted the

implications of the invisibility of nature in decision-making, and presented both the sizeable

impacts and dependencies of economic activities on nature1. Ecosystems and biodiversity

are mainly public goods and, while invisible in their contributions, they are fast degrading

due to various pressures, raising pertinent concerns about sustainability.

The first chapter highlighted some of these questions. It illustrated that agriculture and

food systems are a significant driver of ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, health,

social and cultural externalities, and GHG emission. But at the same time, compelling evi-

dence was presented on the benefits of these systems such as food for humans, feed for

animals, fibre for artisanal and industrial production, raw material for fuels, employment

and cultural cohesion. Many of these positive and negative flows are economically invisi-

ble, hence unaccounted for in public and private decision-making. Similarly, economically

invisible ecological inputs to agriculture, such as freshwater provisioning, nutrient cycling,

and pollination2 are also unaccounted for, rendering them invisible in our decisions.

The TEEB Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgFood) work builds upon the previous work of

TEEB to take a closer look at the ‘eco-agri-food systems’ complex, and addresses this

major gap in decision-making. The core rationale of TEEBAgFood is, as captured by its

mission statement in Box 2.1.

Unpacking TEEBAgFoodThe significant yet hidden benefits and costs of our current agricultural and food sys-

tems not only impact natural systems, but also human, social, and economic systems. As

described in its mission statement, TEEBAgFood seeks to take a comprehensive look at

these hidden benefits and costs, and make them visible. As a first step, the various sys-

Photo: ©Curt Carnemark/World Bank

18

Box 2.1 TEEBAgFood Mission Statement

“The economic environment in which farmers and agricultural policy-makers operate today is

distorted by significant externalities, both negative and positive. Indeed, most of the largest im-

pacts on the health of humans, ecosystems, agricultural lands, waters, and seas arising from

various di$erent types of agricultural and food systems, are economically invisible and do not

get the attention they deserve from decision-makers. There is therefore a need to evaluate all

significant externalities of eco-agri-food systems, to better inform decision-makers in govern-

ments, businesses and farms. Furthermore, there is a need to evaluate the eco-agri-food systems

complex as a whole, and not as a set of silos.”

tems that interact and make up the eco-agri-food systems complex must be recognized.

As demonstrated in Chapter 1, operations within the entire agricultural value chain - pro-

duction, processing, distribution, consumption and waste – not only have impacts but also

depend on the state of the environment, socio-economic well-being, and human health

(see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Eco-agri-food systems complex – impacts and dependencies

19

TEEBAgfood, in its first phase (2014-15), started preliminary work on unpacking the first

part of the food value chain: production. Building upon previous work of TEEB on ecosys-

tem services, the first step involved assessing the impacts and dependencies of agricultur-

al activities on human and natural systems, a significant component of agricultural value

chains.

Figure 2.2 o7ers a closer look at the production stage of the value chain, providing a broad-

brush characterization of the complexity and inter-relatedness of the eco-agri-food sys-

tems complex. It highlights some of the significant (yet hidden) flows between ‘agriculture

and food systems’, ‘human (economic and social) systems’ and ‘biodiversity and ecosys-

tems’.

Figure 2.2 The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production

At the centre of the eco-agri-food systems complex is the agriculture and food system.

This system both depends on - and impacts - natural resources to deliver ecosystem ser-

vices. It also interacts with the human system, for example through providing food and raw

20

Box 2.2 Ecosystem service types4

o Provisioning services cover all nutritional, material and energetic outputs from living systems

o Regulating and maintenance services cover all the ways in which living organisms can mediate

or moderate the ambient environment that a7ects human performance.

o Cultural services cover all the non-material, and normally non-consumptive, outputs of ecosys-

tems that a7ect physical and mental states of people.

materials. The flows between di7erent systems can be divided into two categories: visible

(e.g. food and raw materials that are provided by agriculture and food systems, contributing

to human well-being) and invisible (e.g. ecosystem services such as pollination, provided

by natural systems as inputs to food production).

The broad categories of ecosystem service types are listed in Box 2.2. TEEBAgFood fol-

lows the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)3, as the lat-

est commonly agreed classification to be used, particularly in accounting contexts.

It is important to note here that the goal of the TEEBAgFood study is not only to assess a

wide range of hidden costs and benefits of various agricultural production systems (making

values visible), but to also build an evidence base that provides context-specific examples

and recommendations for sustainable food systems that can feed the world, while main-

taining and improving ecosystem services for the benefit of all including generations to

come.

In the next section, using the example of smallholder rice farming in Asia (based on a TEEBAgFood

exploratory study)5, we illustrate how invisible costs and benefits within eco-agri-food sys-

tems can be made more visible.

A TEEBAgFood Showcase: Ecosystem services in smallholder rice produc-tion systems in AsiaRice is the largest staple food in the world and is central to the food security for nearly half

of the world’s seven billion people. More than 90 per cent of world rice production and

consumption takes place in Asia6. Small (often very small) family farms are the standard

production unit throughout Asia, with rice providing livelihoods to around 140 million rice

farming households7. Furthermore, rice production is facing a set of significant challenges

in terms of ecosystem degradation and stable supply of and access to healthy, well-func-

tioning ecosystems8.

For these reasons, it has been decided to showcase below an assessment of smallholder

rice production systems in Asia, recognizing the many hidden benefits from this type of

farming system. However, TEEBAgFood as an initiative will look at a much wider range of

21

Box 2.3 Combined rice-and-farm fishing12

Combined rice-and-fish farming is practiced in many countries in the world, particularly in Asia

where consumption is largely dependent on rice as the staple crop and fish as the main source of

animal protein. Many traditional systems in Asia are based on concurrent cultivation of rice and

fish, whereas other systems alternate between rice cultivation in one season and fish culturing

in the other. Other systems - especially those in more commercialized rural economies - rely on

separate fish culturing systems. Fish in rice-and-fish systems does not refer only to fin-fish; it

includes the wide variety of aquatic animals living in rice

fields: shrimp, crayfish, crabs, turtles, bivalves, frogs, and

even insects. Farmers may also allow aquatic weeds to

grow, which they harvest for food. Surveys in Cambodia,

for example, have documented the harvest of over nine-

ty di7erent organisms from rice paddies, used by rural

households13.

farming systems to ensure that a variety of socio-economic and ecological contexts are

assessed, including conventional cropping systems. Context-specificity will be an essential

discipline for such analysis, to ensure realistic and useful evaluations.

Although many of the invisibilities in smallholder rice systems are described below, the as-

sessment is nevertheless partial and limited. While addressing the interlinkages between

‘biodiversity and ecosystems’ and ‘agricultural and food systems’ (as seen in Figure 2.2), it

does not address some of the negative health externalities of fertiliser and pesticide use,

nor does it assess important metrics such as employment generation. Nevertheless the

examples provide a useful insight into the value of these services to human well-being, and

builds a case for addressing these invisibilities.

Food

As mentioned in Chapter 1, food is not merely about caloric intake. Dietary diversity, defined

as the number of di7erent foods or food groups consumed over a given reference period9,

can be enhanced by diverse rice agro-ecosystems. This is crucial for the health of rural

communities since many households depend on homogenous diets that are too high in

carbohydrates and too low in animal protein foods and micronutrient-rich fruits, fish and

vegetables10.

Over 90 per cent of the world’s rice is grown under flooded conditions, providing an envi-

ronment not solely for the crop alone but also for a wide range of aquatic organisms11, as

described in Box 2.3.

Photo: ©Rice fish farm/©Halwart

22

The wild and gathered foods from aquatic habitats provide important diversity, nutrition

and food security, supplying essential nutrients that are otherwise not adequately found

in diets. Often these are the primary sources of protein for the rural rice farming commu-

nities, and therefore of immense nutritional value - not just for the rice farmers alone, but

also for landless members of the community14.

Raw materials

Although rice straw and husks are still largely considered as a waste product, they can also

be used for animal feed and bedding. Rice husks are also used as raw material for energy.

Other innovative uses are increasingly being promoted, as illustrated in Box 2.4. These

examples show that the annotation of ‘food’ and ‘fibre’ as visible outputs is a broad-brush

characterization.

Box 2.4 From rice husk to pure drinking water15

Tata Chemicals, a company of India’s Tata Group, co-designs and sells a rice-husk based water

filter. Its active element is a bulb of rice husk ash impregnated with nano silver particles, for purify-

ing water and destroying germs and bacteria. Tata SWACH is a low-priced product (under US$20)

and is widely used (over 400,000 units and bulbs sold in 2014-15). It reduces the environmental

impact of water purification by eliminating i) the need for boiling, thus conserving electricity and/

or liquefied petroleum gas; and ii) the use of harmful chemicals.

Genetic diversity

With its long history of cultivation and selection under diverse environments, rice has ac-

quired a wide adaptability, enabling it to grow in a range of environments, from deep wa-

ter to swamps, irrigated and wetland conditions, as well as on dry hill slopes. The quality

preferences of rice consumers, over millennia, have resulted in a wide diversity of varieties

specific to di7erent localities. Although the exact diversity cannot be gauged, it is estimat-

ed to be around 140,000 di7erent genotypes16. Evidence has shown that individual culti-

vars, strains and breeds of the same (rice) species do have significantly di7erent nutrient

content17. In fact, there are thousands of di7erent rice varieties, some of which have been

around for centuries while others are new hybrids bred to increase rice yields or reduce the

susceptibility to rice pests. Paddy rice farmers in Asia regularly exchange seed with their

neighbours because they observe that any one variety begins to su7er from pest problems

if grown continuously on the same land for several years. The temporal, spatial, and ge-

netic diversity resulting from farm-to-farm variations in cropping systems confers at least

partial resistance to pest attack.

This example links ‘food’ (diversity), ‘genetic diversity’ and human health. It also demon-

strates the often invisible but significant benefits of smallholder systems.

23

Habitat for species

Rice fields harbour a surprisingly rich level of biodiversity, thought to be amongst the great-

est of any tropical rainfed system. As an example of this, 589 species of organisms were

recorded in a rice field in Thailand, and more than 800 species per hectare in rice fields in

Java, Indonesia18. Rice fields serve as habitat for birds and vertebrate wildlife for part or all

of their life cycle.

Biological control

Smallholder and family farmer practices that maintain complex food webs have benefits

both for natural pest control and for wild biodiversity19. Additionally, farmer field schools in

Asia have a long history of working with smallholder farmers to promote natural pest con-

trol and integrated pest management (IPM)20. For instance, naturally occurring frogs , toads

and carnivorous fish keep rice pests at a low level. A study carried out in China reported

68 per cent less expenses incurred for pesticides and 24 per cent less chemical fertiliser

when rice-fish culture was practiced as compared to monocultures21. Data analysed from

five di7erent Asian countries found that, in 80 per cent of the cases, the introduction of fish

led to higher rice yields by at least 2.5 per cent22. This increase can be explained by a de-

creased likelihood of weeds and stembores, which inevitably leads to healthier rice plants.

These examples show a complexity of linkages, with ‘genetic diversity’ impacting on ‘food’

and ‘pest control’. Like other ecosystem services, the provision of ‘pest control’ is depend-

ent on not only local eco-agrological conditions but also how we manage these conditions,

constraints and opportunities. Quantifying and subsequently valuing pest control in TEEBAgFood

is particularly challenging because of the time dimension. The IPM option is one that must

be applied with a medium-term time horizon, whereas a sudden (one-o7) high pesticide

application can destroy this build-up of a ‘stock’ of pest resistance in a short time frame.

But the analysis above nonetheless tells us that it is valuable and often invisible.

Freshwater

The second example of the contributions of ‘biodiversity and ecosystems’ to ‘agriculture

and food systems’ is hydrological services – water quantity and quality. The rice terraces

that characterize upland rice farming systems throughout east, south and southeast Asia

are ancient (and current) examples of farmers working with nature. In these mountainous

areas, the act of growing rice remains labour intensive - built and maintained by genera-

tions of farmers sculpting the land, and preserving water and soil. Water supply, the most

important aspect of rice terraces, comes from rivers and mountain streams. The di7erent

levels of rice terraces allow water to flow successively down each level.

Watershed management in Ifugao, the Philippines23, where the rice terraces have been

24

named a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is based on indigenous knowledge management

of muyong, a private forest capping each terrace cluster. The communally-managed for-

estry areas on top of the terraces are highly diverse, harbouring indigenous and endemic

species. The terraces and forests above serve as a rainwater and filtration system and are

saturated with irrigation water all year round.

Cultural heritage

As the product of indigenous agricultural innovations, communal decision-making and

local customs, smallholder rice production systems provide a living testament to the pos-

sibilities of a harmonious relationship between humans and nature. The ancient Subak

water management systems developed more than a thousand years ago for paddy rice

cultivation in Bali, Indonesia are an excellent example of this24. Paddy fields in Bali were

built around water temples and the allocation of water has traditionally been made by a

priest, in accordance with Hindu traditions.

It is di6cult (and at times inappropriate) to value cultural services in monetary terms, but

this ‘limitation’ sits comfortably with the TEEB framework in general and TEEBAgFood

in particular. TEEB is not in any way supportive of the commodification of nature. These

values can be expressed in qualitative terms, or quantified, or quantified as well as valued.

Each of these alternatives works, in its appropriate human and institutional contexts.

Measuring what we manage: the need for re-evaluationThe rice example discussed in this chapter allows us to understand in some depth the

dependencies and impacts of Asian rice production on ecosystems and biodiversity, but

it is still limited in scope, and paints an incomplete picture. For example, it excludes other

types of rice production, and their far-reaching impacts on environmental or human health.

Only partial conclusions can therefore be drawn from this exercise. Further work needs to

be done to examine our food systems through a comprehensive lens that not only enables

us to view the entire value chain - including production as well as processing, distribution,

consumption and waste - but also includes the full range of their hidden costs and benefits

on human, natural, and social systems. Chapter 3 illustrates what one such comprehensive

lens might look like.

1 Access the TEEB suite of reports for end users at: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/.2 MA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Island Press: Washington, DC.3 See http://www.cices.eu/. 4 Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2013) ‘Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012’, European Environment Agency Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.5 Bogdanski, A., van Dis, R., Gemmill-Herren, B., Attwood, S., Baldock, C., DeClerck, F., DeClerck, R., Lord, R., Hadi, B., Horgan, F., Rutsaert, P., & Turmel, M.S. (2015) Valuation of rice agro-ecosystems. TEEB Rice. Final report. UNEP/FAO, unpublished project

25

report for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) global initiative for Agriculture and Food.6 FAO (2014) A regional rice strategy for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific: final edition. Regional O6ce for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.7 Ibid.8 Ibid.9 Hoddinott, J. & Yohannes, Y. (2002) ‘Dietary diversity as a food security indicator’, Food consumption and nutrition division discussion paper, 136.10 Khoury, C., Bjorkman, A., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. & Struik, P. (2014) ‘Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 4001-4006.11 Halwart, M. & Gupta, M. (2004) Culture of fish in rice fields. FAO and WorldFish Centre, Rome and Penang.12 Ibid.13 Balzer, T. & Pon, S. (2002) Traditional use and availability of aquatic biodiversity in rice-based ecosystems, FAO, Rome.14 De Silva, S., Johnston, R. & Try, T. (2013) ‘Rice and fish: impacts of intensification of rice cultivation’, IWMI - ACIAR Investing in Water Management to Improve Productivity of Rice-Based Farming Systems in Cambodia Project. Issue brief #4.15 ‘Tata Swach’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.tatachemicals.com/products/tata_swach.htm#.Vk281L_3TOS].16 Rai, M. (2003) ‘Genetic diversity in rice production: past contribution and the potential of utilization for sustainable rice pro-duction’, Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission, FAO, Bangkok. 17 Kennedy, G. & Burlingame, B. (2003) ‘Analysis of food composition data on rice from a plant genetic resources perspective’, Journal of Food Chemistry, 80(4), 589-596(8).18 Halwart, M. & Gupta, M.V. (2004) Culture of fish in rice fields. FAO and WorldFish Centre, Rome and Penang.19 Settle, W., Ariawan, H., Tri Astuti, E., Cahyana, W., Hakim, A.L., Hindayana, D. & Sri Lestari, A. (1996) ‘Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey’, Ecology, 1975-1988.20 Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., Vojtkova, M., Phillips, D., Davies, P. & White, H. (2012) ‘Protocol: farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review’, The Campbell Collaboration, Oslo. 21 Xie, J., Hu, L., Tang, J., Wu, X., Li, N., Yuan, Y., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Luo, S. & Chen, X. (2011) ‘Ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of the agricultural heritage rice–fish coculture system’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), E1381–E1387.22 Halwart, M. & Gupta, M. (2004) Culture of fish in rice fields. FAO and WorldFish Centre, Rome and Penang.23 UNESCO, ‘Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/722].24 UNESCO, ‘Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: The Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy’ accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1194].

26

Photo: ©UN photo/Kibae Park

Chapter 3

EVALUATING COMPLEXITY:WHAT SHOULD WE VALUE AND WHY?

27

Chapter 1 and 2 have illustrated some of the hidden, yet significant costs and benefits

in the way we produce, process, distribute, and consume food. These hidden costs and

benefits are rarely captured by conventional economic analyses that usually value goods

and services that have a market price. In the case of agriculture and food systems, this

approach does not value vital (but economically invisible) ecological inputs to agriculture,

such as freshwater provisioning, nutrient cycling, and pollination1. Similarly, economically

invisible impacts of agriculture and food systems, both positive and negative, on water

quality, emissions, and food safety are also not typically accounted for.

To make improvements in our agricultural systems, and to mitigate their significant nega-

tive impacts, governments, businesses, and citizens need to be aware of costs associated

with various agricultural production systems, and consider these in their decisions. Sim-

ilarly, invisible positive impacts of di7erent production and consumption systems can be

better enhanced once made visible. To enable such decision-making, a common frame of

analysis is needed wherein each food system, production alternative, or consumer choice

could be held to a common assessment of costs and benefits. Furthermore, to be com-

prehensive, all hidden costs and benefits of di7erent food systems must be assessed in

their entirety, both in terms of their life cycle and their impacts on all dimensions of human

well-being. This chapter presents the TEEBAgFood valuation framework (see Box 3.1).

Box 3.1 What is the TEEBAgFood ‘valuation framework’?

o The TEEBAgFood valuation framework is a frame of analysis that can enable us to answer the

question “what should we value, and why?”

o The framework ensures that nothing important is missed, and that the full range of impacts and

dependencies (including externalities) from eco-agri-food systems can be individually examined

and collectively evaluated for the application in question, be it a typology comparison, a policy

evaluation, a business question or an accounting question.

Photo: ©Maria Fleischmann/World Bank

28

Towards developing a universal frameworkAs mentioned in TEEBAgFood’s mission statement, one objective of the project is to evaluate

all significant impacts and externalities of the ‘eco-agri-food systems complex’. The chal-

lenge therefore is to develop a framework that captures this significance in a robus and

widely accepted manner.

Two underlying principles are evident in our framing of the ‘eco-agri-food systems complex’.

First, our analyses are not limited to natural systems, but also include social, economic and

political systems, and interactions across and within them. In other words, each of the four

‘capitals’ commonly found in environmental economics literature2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are recognized:

physical capital (e.g. financial resources, machinery, buildings, etc), human capital (e.g. peo-

ple, their health, skills and knowledge), social capital (e.g. trust, norms and institutions) and

natural capital (e.g. minerals, forests, and land). These capitals generate both positive and

negative flows within the eco-agri-food complex, some economically visible, and others

that are not. Second, our analyses are inclusive of all stages of the value chain of eco-agri-

food systems and not just the farm.

A holistic perspective such as this is essential for the proposed TEEBAgFood valuation

framework (Figure 3.1). Indeed, to be an improvement on available knowledge, our evalu-

ations will need to recognize agriculture not only as a supplier of food and raw materials,

but as the largest employer globally, as central to the well-being of nearly a billion people

in rural poverty, and as a cultural activity deeply embedded in everyday life.

Figure 3.1 TEEBAgFood Valuation Framework

o Using a universal framework such as the one recommended here, each type of food system,

production alternative, or consumer choice can be held to a common form of assessment of all

significant costs and benefits, whether they be economic, social or related to risks and uncertainty.

29

The Opportunity

There are a large number of variables involved in any comprehensive analysis that seeks

to evaluate trade-o7s between di7erent approaches. These variables need to be clearly

identified and widely accepted so that they can be used appropriately, consistently and with

confidence in the valuation process.

Any lens that selects only positive elements of value, be they visible or invisible, while

omitting negative elements, or vice-versa, can distort evaluations and lead to sub-optimal

or even perverse outcomes. Unfortunately, much of what we see in policy and business

practices around eco-agri-food systems today, in the absence of a widely accepted valu-

ation framework, is the result of such incomplete or selective analyses. This often leads to

poor policy choices and value-destructive business practices, with sub-optimal outcomes7.

Thus the opportunity for TEEBAgFood is to present a universal framework that would

guide evaluations to use a widely accepted and common lexicon, enabling decision makers

to recognize, demonstrate in economic and social terms, and (where appropriate) capture

not just the economically visible elements, but also, in a consistent way, the significant,

yet ‘hidden’ costs and benefits of di7erent farming systems and value chains, in di7erent

ecological and socio-economic contexts. This is a fundamental ‘first step’ in the direction

towards an eco-agri-food systems complex that produces, processes and distributes food

in a manner that is ecologically sustainable, socially just and provides nutrition, food safety

and health, for generations to come.

The Challenges

Developing a universal framework that would present the eco-agri-food systems complex

in terms of its various components – ecosystems, food, agricultural value chains, and how

these relate to human well-being - presents its own set of challenges.

The first of these challenges is a ‘perception challenge’: overcoming the tendency to view

ecosystems, agricultural systems, food processing, distribution and consumption as dis-

tinct ‘silos’, instead of one comprehensive interacting whole. As illustrated in the earlier

work done by MA, TEEB, and CICES8, environment and human well-being are connected,

dynamic systems.

In the case of eco-agri-food-systems, these relationships are even more apparent. Agri-

culture is squarely dependent on ecosystems. The production of agricultural commodities

require ecosystem services such as water provisioning, pollination, and genetic diversity, to

name a few9. Human well-being, in turn, is also dependent on agricultural and food sys-

tems, which provide various economic and social benefits – income, livelihood, culture, and

nutrition10, 11, 12. Some agricultural activities however can compromise the very integrity of

30

environmental systems they depend on, raising serious concerns of sustainability13. There-

fore, the universal framework to be developed needs to establish a common understanding

of the complex as a whole, wherein these services and impact flows can be recognized and

reflected in cross-Ministry coordination and private-public dialogues for decision-making.

The second challenge in developing a universal framework is an ‘adaptability challenge’.

Since the framework is to be used to assess significantly di7erent food systems, evaluate

di7erent policy scenarios, monitor food systems over time, and help guide business deci-

sions and consumption choices, it needs to be adaptable. For example, livestock can

be reared in various ways, ranging from traditional pastoral systems to intensive factory

farms. These di7erent livestock production systems interact with environmental and so-

cio-economic systems very di7erently; in other words, their main impacts and externalities,

both positive and negative, would di7er. Furthermore, these di7erent food production systems

are dependent on ecosystems in di7erent ways, and deliver hidden costs and benefits at

di7erent geographical scales. Selecting appropriate system typologies and scales there-

fore, without selection bias, is a challenge that must be faced directly in developing a uni-

versal framework.

The third challenge in assessing the eco-agri-food systems complex is a ‘comprehensive-

ness challenge’. A comprehensive framework would ensure that all hidden costs and ben-

efits are assessed for the agricultural value chain as a whole, including both upstream and

downstream dependencies and impacts. For example, various inputs to farming, such as

freshwater and pollination, are generated at the watershed/landscape level (upstream), be-

yond farm borders. Similarly, some hidden costs of farming, such as eutrophication caused

by farm runo7, may occur downstream of the farm. While analyses that are limited to the

farm may have the virtue of simplicity, they are partial and can potentially mislead. Further-

more, value chains for agricultural commodities can di7er substantially within the same

commodity, leading to di7erent environmental and social costs and benefits for di7erent

types of food systems. For example, corn produced for human consumption or animal feed

has di7erent impacts on both environment and human health, as against corn produced

for ethanol, throughout their respective value chains.

Furthermore, with globalization, agricultural supply chains stretch longer and are more

complex14, where hidden costs and benefits occur well beyond national borders, raising

questions of traceability. This combines both the challenge of being comprehensive and

that of identifying all value chain processes for a particular commodity. Yet addressing all

of these dimensions is essential for a comprehensive assessment of the eco-agri-food

systems complex.

The last challenge is not unique to TEEBAgFood; it is a ‘systems challenge’, which is the

31

di6culty of recognizing and addressing the dynamic complexity of food production and

consumption15, 16, 17. Eco-agri-food systems are constantly changing over time and space,

and these dynamics have to be understood, forecasted and modelled in any robust evalu-

ation. Policymakers and businesses both struggle with forecasting changes in demand and

predicting variables that influence agricultural value chains. The gradually changing mix

and supply of ecosystem services due to climate change, habitat encroachment and land

use is another example of the dynamic nature of the complex we seek to evaluate.

Elements of the Valuation FrameworkThe elements of the framework include selecting value chain boundaries, defining scale,

and identifying the values being considered. But first, we need to di7erentiate between

framework, approach and methodology.

Valuation �Framework� versus �Approach� versus �Methodologies�

Valuation framework (i.e. what to value and why), valuation approach (i.e. how to structure

and conduct valuation applications) and valuation methodologies (i.e. the actual valuation

models and techniques used to derive economic value and other forms of value) are the

cornerstones of economic valuation in general, as they will be for TEEBAgFood.

The approach to valuation will always be context-specific and will depend on the applica-

tion being considered. For example, recent applications of valuation have emerged in the

context of policy, business and national accounting18, 19, 20, 21. The approach in each context

and application will be di7erent. However, for the sake of completeness and comparability,

it is important that the elements of value considered and evaluated in each approach are

the same, defined and described in a consistent manner. Failing that, it would not be pos-

sible to draw policy or business conclusions from comparisons across di7erent scenarios

or strategies, as each evaluation would be using its own lexicon, making its own choices of

what should be valued and why. This is precisely why we need a universal framework that

consistently and clearly answers the question: “What should be valued, and why?”

Figure 3.2 shows how a universal framework can be used as a lens to focus the valuation

question being asked, and a filter to select relevant parameters and data, in order that the

vast eco-agri-food systems complesx that is being evaluated is viewed in a manner appro-

priate to context and application.

The framework provides a structure and an overview of what should be included in the anal-

ysis, but does not prescribe methods for valuation. Methods of valuation will depend on the

values to be assessed, availability of data, and the purpose of the analysis. The framework

is recommended for use in an interdisciplinary manner, where all relevant stakeholders,

including policymakers, businesses and citizens, understand and identify questions that are

32

to be answered by a valuation exercise. From this understanding, the scale, scope, relevant

variables, and appropriate methods are selected.

Finally, it should be made clear that valuation is neither a simple undertaking nor a panacea

to all our problems. TEEB treats valuation as a human institution which is contextual to a

place and time22 and, as such, allows us the opportunity to reflect on our decisions while

o7ering a potential way to better inform them.

Figure 3.2 Four applications of valuation supported by one universal “Valuation Framework”

‘Value addition’, or the idea that we can change the state (space, time, and characteristics)

of a product to make it more valuable to humanity, is central to our proposed valuation

framework.

At the business level, value addition is a measure of operating profit, i.e. sum of factor

returns and surplus generated by firms over and above their purchases from other firms.

At the national level, a System of National Accounts (SNA) incorporates value addition

through the income approach of calculating the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator,

which is the sum of compensation of employees, taxes less subsidies on production, and

the operating surplus of the producer23.

33

However, the mechanisms for estimating value addition, at both business and national

levels, generally rely on market prices, thus ignoring economically invisible flows that form

important components of the eco-agri-food systems complex. To address this gap, our

proposed framework defines value addition as “the contribution of invisible and visible

flows to human well-being” through their positive (or negative) impacts along the agricul-

tural value chain (Figure 3.1).

MA, TEEB, CICES and others have, to a considerable extent, identified some of the hid-

den flows within the eco-agri-food systems complex. These bodies of work have evolved

widespread consensus on a typology of ecosystem services that connect natural systems

to human well-being, and allow us to identify these relationships within eco-agri-food sys-

tems.

For example, agricultural systems both depend upon and impact natural capital in their

ability to deliver ecosystem services24, 25. Services such as rainfall and pollination act as

critical inputs to agricultural production, but agricultural production can impact the func-

tioning of ecosystems that deliver these services through water pollution and loss of bio-

diversity26.

Agricultural systems also enhance human well-being through cultural experiences around

agricultural activities, food security, and resilience. While some of these services or disser-

vices27 cannot be (and from an ethical standpoint, should not be) reduced to a monetary

value, they still need to be recognized and accounted for in decision-making. On the other

hand, some flows of agricultural systems (e.g. food yields, employment) are economically

visible, have market prices, and are accounted for in business as well as national accounts.

However, even with market prices, other welfare e7ects like food security related to these

transactions may not be visible.

At this point, it is important to reiterate that TEEBAgFood adopts an anthropocentric ap-

proach – that of “value addition” to human well-being - in order to analyse the eco-agri-

food systems complex. Therefore, we also accept the ethical perspective that this pre-

sumes. We acknowledge that there exist alternative perspectives, such as a rights-based

approach that recognizes value to other species, and the rights of Mother Earth28, 29, and we

respect such alternatives.

To summarize, within our framework, value additions are divided into two broad categories

of flows:

1. Visible: Value addition generally accounted for in systems of national accounts and in

business accounts. For example, profits, wages, indirect taxes, etc. are accounted for by

the ‘income method’ of GDP compilation.

34

2. Invisible: Value addition generally not accounted for in national or business accounts,

including many environmental, social, and cultural flows. Examples include: water provi-

sioning at the landscape level for agriculture; human health e7ects of consuming food

containing harmful chemicals; food security; and unpaid labour. We propose to adopt

CICES classification for environmental flows (‘ecosystem services’) and add to that other

significant social and cultural flows.

It should be noted that these visible and invisible flows are generated by all types of capi-

tals – human, social, physical, and natural – and can be both positive and negative, and can

either increase or decrease over time. For example, negative human health e7ects from

consuming certain foods are identified as negative value additions, and benefits such as

employment and resilience are identified as positive value additions. Furthermore, degra-

dation of natural, social, and human capital can lead to declines in the flow of value addi-

tions over time.

Beyond Economic Value-addition - Social value, resilience value, risks & uncertainties

While we suggest using the metric of value addition to capture value generated from

economic, environmental, social, and cultural flows within the eco-agri-food complex, we

acknowledge that the eco-agri-food systems complex has significant implications for

sustainability and equity, and that limiting evaluations to the yardstick of ‘value addition’

does not address important equity and resilience issues.

Furthermore, it is equally important to recognize the existence of risks and uncertainties

that are not included in current assessments of flows and impacts, and may not even be

fully understood at present. For example, information on health impacts of food systems is

controversial and contested. At the same time, however, human health is inextricably tied

to food systems, and ignoring this important link would weaken a universal framework that

seeks to capture most, if not all, of the flows within the eco-agri-food systems complex. In

the human health context of the valuation framework of TEEBAgFood, risks would need

to be measured in terms of available health and medical statistics, as well as estimates of

potential treatment costs. The distinction between risk and uncertainty is widely discussed

in literature30. In essence, “risk” is a quantifiable possibility of loss, injury or any other form

of damage, while “uncertainty” is when we not only do not know what is going to happen

next, but we also do not know the possible outcomes nor their respective probabilities.

An example of uncertainty is the state of knowledge on the e7ects of genetically modified

(GM) crops. This is evidenced inter alia by the fact that 300 scientists in a joint statement

published recently in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe31 said that:

“…the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced;

35

complex; often contradictory or inconclusive; confounded by researchers’ choices, as-

sumptions, and funding sources; and, in general, has raised more questions than it has

currently answered.”

The case for recognizing uncertainty, and using the precautionary principle when bringing

evaluations of uncertainty into responses from policy-making and business strategy was

highlighted (in the context of the state of knowledge about ecosystem thresholds) by TEEB32.

Thus we also propose to develop and use additional ‘social’ and ‘resilience’ indicators of

value (both quantitative and qualitative) for di7erent models of agriculture. For example, we

could consider the following indicators:

o Total number of jobs provided by a particular type of agricultural production;

o Agricultural income as a fraction of household income in poverty-a7ected areas;

o Food output distributed to food-insecure areas as a fraction of total farm output; and

o Risks and uncertainties of impacts on human health from various agricultural inputs.

It should be highlighted that the dominant models of agricultural management today are

largely focused on using the common yardstick of profit, and so the data we seek may not

be readily available. However, by establishing this valuation framework, we also wish to

establish (as well as respond to) the need for necessary further research to obtain and use

such data in appropriate policy and management contexts.

Typology and Scale � recognizing diverse systems, reflecting real landscapes

The ‘adaptability challenge’ identified earlier allows us to recognize that the framework

must be adaptable so that di7erent types of farming systems can be assessed using this

universal framework as a guide.

Farming systems can be characterized based on various criteria: the diversity of crops

grown; type and intensity of inputs such as chemical or organic fertilisers and pesticides;

type of irrigation; size of farms; and socio-economic and cultural contexts etc. Furthermore,

since the valuation framework takes account of multiple values of food production sys-

tems, beyond food provisioning, farms are to be examined in their entirety. This will allow

us to identify and assess the overall contributions and impacts of mixed farming systems.

Relatedly, the framework should allow for di7erent geographical scales to be accommo-

dated. While some agricultural systems create impacts at a smaller scale, others can reach

well beyond the watershed. Whether analysis is limited to a watershed or a river basin or

a broader landscape may be determined depending on the context, and the framework

allows for this adaptability.

36

While this does introduce a diversity of variables and we do recognize the challenges of

context and comparability, it is important to include these so that non-marketed values

of household resilience and multiple values of mixed systems can come to light and be

evaluated.

Boundaries � life cycle approach and value chains

Value chain boundaries allow us to identify which stages in the life cycle of food produc-

tion ought to be assessed, and identify value addition at each of these stages. Boundaries

determine the variables to be included or excluded in our analysis. For example, using the

farm as a boundary would limit the analysis to farm-level processes of food production,

excluding upstream value chain processes that contribute to food production, and down-

stream value additions of food distribution and consumption. To ensure that these essen-

tial relationships are adequately captured, the framework is designed to encompass the

entire value chain of agricultural systems.

We have therefore mapped three important life cycle stages (‘production’, ‘processing and

distribution’, and ‘consumption’) and their main component stages in order to provide a

framework for evaluation that is comprehensive. Within each of these stages, we also iden-

tify the value additions that relate to all four capitals, including risk and resilience. These

value-addition elements and value-chain stages in our Framework are summarized in Figure 3.1.

It should be borne in mind that all ‘value addition’ components are made explicit in the val-

uation framework to ensure that each is given due attention, but that they are not always

additive. This is for various reasons.

Firstly, some value additions, in the form of regulation and maintenance services are gen-

erated by intermediate flows that contribute to the provisioning of certain final value ad-

ditions. For example, regulation of soil fertility is an intermediate (invisible) flow that con-

tributes to the provisioning of (visible) food yields. Adding both of these flows would lead

to double counting. However, these are e7ectively decoupled in the framework, due to the

importance of recognizing the role and ability of ecosystems in delivering both of these

intermediate flows over time. This is critical for sustainable planning and public policy.

Secondly, while some value additions can be measured in economic terms, some cannot.

For example, while water provisioning services can be quantified, cultural flows that add to

social capital are qualitative. While these are not additive, the recognition of these flows,

independently, is important for assessing trade-o7s between di7erent food systems using

evaluation approaches such as multi-criteria analysis.

37

Lastly, value additions may generate secondary value additions. For example, wages, a form

or primary value addition generated at the farm, may be invested in education, which can

generate secondary value additions. While the TEEBAgFood framework does not include

secondary value additions, appropriate multipliers may be used to assess these, depending

on context.

This choice of boundary does impose considerable analytical challenges. Therefore, we do

not expect that every research consortium that contributes to TEEBAgFood with expertise

in farm-level assessment will have su6cient expertise in downstream impacts. Notwith-

standing, their contributions could be valuable as they cover important points in the overall

matrix of TEEBAgFood evaluations.

System Dynamics - modeling evolving policy & physical environments

Policy and decision-makers in agriculture and food need to make choices and balance

di7erent demands on land use, plan appropriate actions and respond to potential future

pressures on ecosystems, and do so within a complex, fast-changing and highly uncertain

world33, 34. It is therefore not su6cient to consider and compare agricultural systems as

they are now. We should consider how they may change in the future under the influence

of external factors that are di6cult to predict, and what this may mean for biodiversity and

ecosystems over time, space, and along the value chain.

Because the interaction and dependencies between biodiversity and ecosystem services

and agriculture, food and other human systems vary in space and over time, and interac-

tions occur across multiple scales35, 36, 37, 38, it is important that the framework adopts a ‘sys-

tem dynamics’ perspective. Furthermore, as agricultural systems often generate impacts

on ecosystem services beyond the farm or even beyond the landscape or watershed, it is

important to use spatially explicit analyses. Modelling, and spatially explicit modelling, in

particular, helps to simulate the complex multi-scalar interactions in human environments

and systems. Moreover, it can help assess the outcomes of a range of alternative develop-

ment pathways for agricultural systems.

Scenario development and modelling can help explore the many uncertainties facing ag-

ricultural systems by describing how the future may develop, based on di7erent assump-

tions about key relationships and driving forces at di7erent scales. The framework can

support the development of scenarios with interventions addressing specific types of val-

ue generation or elements of the life-cycle considered. The framework by itself does not

analyse causal relationships, which is where modelling of various pathways, ideally in a

spatially explicit manner, contributes. The framework then allows the assessment of how

di7erent strategies or management options a7ect the natural capital that agriculture both

depends - and impacts - upon. In that regard, the framework can significantly contribute

38

to the development of scenarios and their quantification (in biophysical units or economic

values) using system dynamic modelling.

Using the frameworkThis framework is not intended to be a “plug-and-play” type of tool. It links the multiple

dimensions of agriculture and food systems that need to be taken account of when apply-

ing valuations to inform policy choices, inform business management decisions, identify

agricultural research needs, and so on.

The three core elements of this framework are:

a) Value addition as a common unit of value measurement and analysis;

b) Adopting a standard typology of farming systems that allows for cross comparisons

between di7erent alternatives, e.g, food systems, products or policy options; and

c) A systems perspective where a life-cycle approach allows the analysis of all relevant

impacts along the entire value chain from production to consumption so that all value

additions can be captured.

These three elements can enable policymakers and businesses to:

1. Identify the various points in the value chain where the most value additions (both

positive and negative) occur;

2. Compare various options of farming systems, or management practices, distribution

systems, and policy options on the basis of their value additions; and

3. Contextualize agricultural systems within economic or development policy, highlight-

ing the various hidden costs and benefits of eco-agri-food systems, such as the value of

smallholder farming systems for both employment generation and food security.

At a policy level

The policy landscape influences the agricultural sector in various ways; land use and spa-

tial planning, import/export regulations, subsidies and taxes, investments in agricultural

research and development all influence the way in which we produce, process, distribute

and consume food39.

Using this framework as guide, central and local governments can account for various

public investments and expenditures across di7erent types of farming systems, or con-

sumer policies along with their associated costs and benefits on human health, ecosys-

tem functioning, GHG emissions, and other public goods. This can allow governments to

measure trade-o7s between di7erent systems, and reward di7erent options for agricultural

production, through changing regulations, incentives or investment patterns. Furthermore,

fiscal policy decisions on subsidies, pollution taxes, research and development policies, and

priority setting can be informed by using this framework.

39

Governments and international agencies can contextualize agricultural systems in devel-

opment policy, highlighting the various hidden costs and benefits of eco-agri food systems,

such as the value of smallholder farming systems for both employment generation and

food security.

Decisions on land use can be informed by including value additions at a higher spatial

scale – beyond farm gate. Recognizing the role of economically invisible inputs to farming,

such as pollination, freshwater cycling and nutrient cycling, can support policy decisions to

sustain ‘public goods’ by investing in conservation and integrated watershed management,

using instruments such as protected area creation, Payments for Ecosystem Services, and

the creation of wildlife corridors.

It should be noted that there is a political economy to decisions made by governments

which goes beyond valuations and cost benefit assessments. Merely the act of providing

a holistic valuation is no guarantee of the right policy action for change. However, it is our

proposition, and the argument of all TEEB reports, that economic invisibility worsens policy

decisions, and conversely, that providing valuations in the right context can help support

policy changes towards improved impacts on society and especially its less privileged

members.

At a business level

Environmental changes present both risks and opportunities for businesses, particularly

agri-businesses and the food and beverages industry. Companies make decisions based

on various risks and opportunities (operational, regulatory, reputational, market and prod-

uct, and financing), and accounting for value additions in supply chains can allow for com-

panies to identify these, and take appropriate action. For example, companies can use this

framework to determine sustainability criteria in purchasing decisions, particularly the food

and beverages industry.

Emerging markets for carbon, biodiversity, watershed services, and eco-labeling have de-

veloped over the years40. The framework can help companies identify where and how value

additions are being a7ected, and how positive values can be secured and negative impacts

avoided through the entire value chain. Businesses can also compare di7erent value chain

trajectories based on the value they generate. Applications of the lens of the valuation

framework include risk management, option appraisal and exploring new revenue streams.

Lastly, the value addition framework can also allow the company to identify and invest in

the ecosystem services that their production depends on. For example, agribusinesses can

invest in the protection of watersheds that deliver vital intermediate value additions in the

form of hydrological services.

40

At a national accounting level

Within the TEEBAgFood framework, value additions happen through flows within the eco-

agri-food systems complex that build (or deplete) the four capitals (human, social, physi-

cal, and natural). For example, value addition arising from nutrition flows from agricultural

systems can lead to an increase in human capital in the form of improved health.

In 2012, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) Central Framework

was adopted by the UN Statistical Commission as a complementary statistical standard

to facilitate a broader assessment of economic activity and its links to natural capital than

provided in standard national accounts. In 2013, this work was further advanced through

the release of SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting41. Both of these SEEA documents

provide a platform for integrating information on the changing stocks of environmental as-

sets, including their depletion and degradation, and information on ecosystems and their

services, with the standard economic information of the national accounts framework. A

key feature of SEEA is its articulation of accounting in both monetary and physical terms,

recognizing that integrated information relies on: (i) understanding the systemic, physical

relationships between environmental assets and the supply of goods and services; and (ii)

estimating the relative importance and value of these relationships.

It is however accepted that the extensions to the national accounts presented in SEEA only

integrate aspects related to natural capital. The full integration of human and social cap-

ital within national accounting frameworks remains a work in progress, albeit one of ever

increasing interest in the light of both global sustainable development initiatives and tar-

geted assessments such as those envisaged in the TEEBAgFood study and the proposed

valuation framework.

And overall

It is expected that this proposed framework would allow consumers, policymakers, and

businesses to recognize, and where appropriate, capture hidden flows of the eco-agri-

food systems complex in their decision-making. This framework is a lens that allows us

to make the invisible visible: it helps to evaluate the impacts of and dependencies on

these important flows which have mostly been treated as non-existent by decision-mak-

ers.

The framework itself does not prove or establish causal relationships between the var-

ious value chain components – such as how consumption a7ects production, or how

ecosystems a7ect farms. It can however be used in a systems analysis approach, where-

in value additions can be determined across spatial and temporal scales. Furthermore,

while the framework itself does not measure ecosystem assets or their ability or inability

to deliver ecosystem services over time, it is an important component of valuation and

41

ensures that risks and uncertainties should be recognized and accounted for, especially

as analyses can be carried out over varying time horizons.

1 MA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC.2 Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Dubourg, W. (1994) ‘The Economics of Sustainable Development’, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 19, 457-474. 3 Serageldin, I. (1996) ’Sustainability and the wealth of nations: first steps in an ongoing journey’, Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs series - no. 5*ESSD Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development Work in Progress, World Bank, Washington, DC. 4 World Bank (2006) Where is the wealth of nations - Measuring capital for the 21st century, World Bank, Washington DC. 5 International Integrated Reporting Council (2013) ‘Capitals - Background Paper for <IR>’, IIRC.6 Joint UNECE/EuroStat/OECD Task Force on Measuring Sustainable Development (2013) Framework and suggested indica-tors to measure sustainable development.7 MA (2005) ‘Living beyond our means: Natural assets and human well-being - Statement from the Board’.8 Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2013) ‘Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012’, European Environment Agency Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.9 Power, A. (2010) ‘Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeo7s and synergies’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-ety B, 365, 2959-2971. 10 Acharya, S. (2006) ‘Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods’, Agricultural Economics Research Review, 19(2).11 Swinton, S., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. & Hamilton, S. (2007) ‘Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosys-tems for diverse benefits’, Ecological Economics, 64(2), 245-252.12 DeSchutter, O. (2010) Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council, United Nations General Assembly.13 Clay, J. (2004) World Agriculture and the Environment: A commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices, Island Press.14 Frazão, E., Meade, B. & Regmi, A. (2008) ‘Converging patterns in global food consumption and food delivery systems’, US Department of Agriculture.15 Kearney, J. (2010) ‘Food consumption trends and drivers’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Bio-logical Sciences, 365(1554), 2793–2807.16 Regmi, A. & Meade, B. (2013) ‘Demand side drivers of global food security’, Global Food Security, 2(3), 166-171.17 Pingali, P. (2007) ‘Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy’, Food Policy, 32(3), 281-298. 18 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2009) Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation - a framework for improving corporate decision-making, WBCSD, Geneva.19 United Nations Statistics Division (2013) ‘System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_project/default.asp]. 20 World Bank (undated) ‘Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services’ (WAVES), accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.wavespartnership.org/]. 21 TEEB (undated), ‘TEEB Country Studies’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.teebweb.org/areas-of-work/coun-try-studies-home/]. 22 Sukhdev P., Wittmer, H. & Miller, D. (2014) ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): Challenges and Respons-es’, in Nature in the Balance: The Economics of Biodiversity, edited by Helm, D. & Hepburn, C. Oxford University Press, Oxford.23 International Monetary Fund (2007) ‘The system of macroeconomic accounts statistics: an overview’, Pamphlet Series No. 56, IMF, Washington DC.24 Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K., Cassidy, E., Gerber, J., Johnston, M., Mueller, N., O’Connell, C., Ray, D., West, P., Balzer, C., Bennett, E., Carpenter, S., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. & Zaks, D. (2011), ‘Solu-tions for a cultivated planet’, Nature, 478, 337-342.25 Power, A. (2010) ‘Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeo7s and synergies’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So-ciety B, 365, 2959-2971.26 Dale V. & Polasky S. (2007) ‘Measures of the e7ects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics, 64(2), 286-296. 27 Zhang, W., Ricketts, T., Kremen, C., Carney, K. & Swinton, S. (2007) ‘Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture’, Eco-

42

logical Economics, 64(2), 253-260. 28 Pacheco, D. (undated) Living-well in harmony and balance with Mother Earth: A proposal for establishing a new global rela-tionship between human beings and Mother Earth.29 UNEP (2013) ‘South-South cooperation: Sharing national pathways towards inclusive green economies’, accessed on 18 No-vember 2015 [http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/Policy%20Brief%20South-South%20Cooperation_final.pdf]. 30 Knight, F. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Dover, Mineola.31 Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., Antoniou, M., Bereano, P., Clark, E., Hansen, M., Novotny, E., Heinemann, J., Meyer, H., Shiva, V. & Wynne, B. (2015) ‘No scientific consensus on GMO safety’ Environmental Sciences Europe, 27, 4.32 TEEB Foundations (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, edited by Pushpam Kumar, Earthscan, London.33 Godfray, H., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Nisbett, N., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C. & Whiteley, R. (2010) ‘The future of the global food system’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1554), 2769-2778.34 Hazell P. & Wood S. (2008) ‘Drivers of change in global agriculture’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bio-logical Sciences, 363(1491), 495-515.35 Kearney J. (2010) ‘Food consumption trends and drivers’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Bio-logical Sciences, 365(1554), 2793–2807.36 Gerbens-Leenes, W. & Nonhebel, S. (2005) ‘Food and land use: the influence of consumption patterns on the use of agricul-tural resources’, Appetite, 45(1), 24-31.37 Regmi, A. & Meade. B. (2013) ‘Demand side drivers of global food security’, Global Food Security, 2(3), 166-171.38 Pingali, P. (2007) ‘Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and pol-icy’, Food Policy, 32(3), 281-298.39 Mogues, T., Yu, B., Fan, S. & McBride, L. (2012) ‘The impacts of public investment in and for agriculture Synthesis of the exist-ing evidence’, ESA Working paper No. 12-07.40 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2009) Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation - a framework for improving corporate decision-making, WBCSD, Geneva.41 United Nations Statistics Division (2013) ‘System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_project/default.asp].

Photo: ©Shutterstock

Chapter 4

THE WAY FORWARD: FROM ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO SOLUTIONS FOR POLICY, FARMING, BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS

43

The case for examining the eco-agri-food systems complex (and especially di7erent pro-

duction systems with their specific interactions with people and nature) has been set out in

the first chapter. The development of the TEEBAgFood framework in Chapter 3 will guide

us to carry out assessments. The ultimate aim of the TEEBAgFood study is not only to

make an assessment of the positive and negative externalities of the di7erent production

systems (making values visible) but also to build an evidence base to formulate recom-

mendations (see Box 4.1) toward solutions for sustainable and resilient food systems that

feed the world while maintaining and improving ecosystem services for all people.

In this regard, TEEBAgFood is also a contribution to a transition in the eco-agri-food sys-

tems complex towards long-term sustainability at a time when a growing demand for food,

feed, fuel and fibre, and the new and additional challenges of climate change (both in terms

of mitigation and adaptation), will add to the already existing pressures on this system.

Making previously invisible positive and negative externalities visible and valuing all exter-

nalities will enable us to make informed decisions for better solutions. And the challenges

are huge. FAO put it in the following way: “Addressing the food-energy-climate change

nexus will be agriculture’s greatest challenge this century.”1 To date, economic analysis has

concentrated mainly on the visible outcomes of the agricultural sector as yields per hec-

tare, prices for unit produced, and costs of inputs, focusing less on the invisible externalities

that are not priced in the market. But without them we do not fully understand how the

system is working and what we have to do to maintain ecosystems for food production and

as life support systems for us all.

Solutions have to be sympathetic to the needs, aspirations and constraints of the full range

of a7ected stakeholders on both sides of the economic equation: the supply side (land-

owners, farmers, agri-business, processors and distributors) and the demand side (con-

sumers). Solutions are required at all scales, within all systems, and across all stages of the

value chain. The overall added benefits of feeding a growing population while ensuring the

Photo: ©Flickr/Enshahdi

44

Box 4.1 Summary of our recommendations

Learning from our exploratory studies and wide consultations, our key proposals towards crafting

the way forward for TEEBAgFood are:

1. Seek Holistic Evaluations through a Universal Framework:

a. Include all significant dependencies and impacts from biodiversity-agriculture linkages, in-

cluding agricultural biodiversity

b. Typologies evaluated should include mixed systems

c. O7-farm dependencies and impacts to be included, taking the full ‘eco-agri-food’ value chain

as boundary

d. Health impacts to be included - arising from unhealthy diets, or arising from agricultural im-

pacts on air & water quality & vector-borne diseases

e. The full gamut of impacts and externalities identified in the TEEBAgFood framework should

be applied across all major system typologies

2. Evaluate Policy Response Options at Di$erent Points in the Food Value Chain:

a. Supply-side measures

b. Market-based instruments such as removing perverse incentives, certifications, PES schemes

c. Information-provision for farmers (stimulating the supply and adoption of appropriate Agri-

cultural Science, Knowledge and Technology)

d. Demand-side measures: Information provision for consumers (e.g.: eco-labelling), incentives

and disincentives

e. ‘Ecological Infrastructure’ investments to secure agricultural dependencies & resilience

3. Calls for Collaboration, Knowledge, Transparency & Disclosure:

a. A call for evidence and how to contribute: Inviting experts covering diverse aspects, geogra-

phies, value-chains of eco-agri-food systems to provide evidence and suggest analysis towards

our objectives

b. Applying the TEEBAgFood framework: Commissioning and synthesizing research that gen-

erates the complete picture, thereby providing important evidence for policy interventions

c. Developing a community of practice: Building collaborations with institutions and experts

(contributors, authors, reviewers, practitioners in policy and business, civil society representa-

tives)

d. Implementing a dissemination and outreach strategy that targets the wide range of actors in

the eco-agri-food systems complex

Chapter 4 - From Economic Analysis to Solutions for Policy, Farming, Business and Consumers45

long-term sustainability of the systems that food production depends on will significantly

outweigh the costs of change. Without change, the most vulnerable people and the poorest

(mainly in developing countries) will have to pay the costs of inaction.

The TEEBAgFood framework can help us to make informed choices, as there are many

agents in the eco-agri-food systems complex. Trade-o7s are inherent – some agents will

be better o7, others worse o7 – but in populating the framework we make these trade-o7s

explicit, and include impacts and externalities that would otherwise likely remain invisible

(and thus not accounted for in our trade-o7 calculus). For instance, communities that engage in artisanal fishing may see their livelihoods im-

pacted by eutrophication from upstream fertiliser run-o7 from crops that are being grown

for the export market, and thus foodstu7s that never reach local markets. On the other

hand, these same export-focused agri-businesses might contribute positively to the local

economy in terms of taxes paid (that then fund public services) and employment creation.

This example shows a range of trade-o7s - across agents, across the value chain, and

across categories of value-addition. Further, these trade-o7s will change over time, as sys-

tems are in a constant state of flux.

In Phase I of the TEEBAgFood project (April 2014 – December 2015), TEEB commissioned

research in various externality-heavy agricultural sectors to examine such trade-o7s (see

abstracts in Appendix I). As these studies come to a close, they represent our first analysis

by providing a global perspective on a wide range of di7erent products, production sys-

tems and management practices, in each case considering positive and negative external-

ities and the degree of impact.

Figure 4.1 shows the geographical coverage of the various ‘exploratory studies’. They rep-

resent the state of the art (for example in linking environmental economics valuation with

geo-spatial modelling) and have laid the necessary foundation for the way forward.

Each exploratory study was predicated on the overall TEEBAgFood vision (making impacts

and externalities visible) and they supported the development of the framework (Chap-

ter 3), which was agreed in an expert workshop with more than 100 participants (from a

range of sectors) in Brussels in September 2015. These studies do not assess the entire

supply chain but rather focus on impacts and dependencies on-farm (with some analysis

of inputs feedstu7s) and in some cases in the wider landscape. They do not consider o7-

farm processing, distribution and final consumption, which has been identified as a critical

research gap. Further, although there is some assessment of health impacts arising from

pesticide and fertiliser application (changes in air quality and in vector borne disease), the

information is partial and does not capture the full range of health externalities that

TEEBAgFood will look at in Phase II.

46

Figure 4.1 Geographical coverage of the ‘exploratory studies’

In Appendices II-V, we provide a snapshot of the research methodologies developed and

applied, data sources and limitations, and indicative first biophysical and valuation results

for selected case studies from the rice, livestock and agroforestry studies. They are pre-

sented to demonstrate proof of concept and focus on moving from assessing production

to the valuation of production systems.

In Phase I of TEEBAgFood, research was delineated based on single sectors. This delin-

eation has its pros and cons. On the plus side, sector-level assessment is typical in ac-

counting in the business sphere. The focus on single sectors also reduced the complexity

of the analysis and facilitated a ‘deeper dive’ into the impacts of individual management

practices associated with the production systems. Another benefit is that outcomes can

be generalized since these case studies link to typologies of production systems and the

specific management practices they include. This focus facilitates trade-o7 analysis and

the valuation of changing management practices from the perspective of multiple benefi-

ciaries. Thus there is value-added beyond the confines of the specific case study country/

agro-ecological system. This is important as TEEBAgFood is a global initiative.

There are also downsides to this approach. First, di7erent eco-agricultural systems interact

with each other; this is why TEEBAgFood assesses eco-agri-food systems as a complex.

Second, a commodity-based approach is often associated with monocultures and these

may be less sustainable than mixed systems2. Starting with a commodity-based approach

however facilitates the aggregation of these same commodities across landscapes, a focus

of Phase II.

47

Across the 20+ combinations of sector/production system/country assessed in the six

exploratory studies, four case studies are presented in the Appendices along with the ra-

tionale for their inclusion:

I. Rice production practices. The rice study looks at alternative production practices

within eco-agricultural systems. It develops a typology of such practices, and shows

trade-o7s or synergies between ecosystem functioning and livelihoods.

II. Livestock production assessment. This case study provides a synopsis of the ‘bot-

tom-up’ approach as applied to all three livestock sub-sectors in scope (i.e. poultry, beef

and dairy) but then focuses on dairy by way of example. It sets out a typology of dairy

systems and also explicitly addresses biodiversity loss. Since the analysis relies to some

extent on global datasets, the study does not allow for local conditions in-country to the

same degree as the third case study (Maasai Steppe), but it provides indicative results

that can inform international policy dialogues.

III. Pastoralism in the Maasai Steppe. This case study is part of the overall livestock

study. It is a ‘deep dive’ where the local socio-cultural and agro-ecological context is

embedded in the analysis, and local data are used where possible. It also demonstrates

how the optimal choice changes across the time horizon when we take a broad set of

ecosystem services into account, i.e. what is best if we focus only on today is not best if

we look across the next 20 years.

IV. Bio-physical modelling of co$ee, cacao and pastoral agro-forestry systems. There

are a range of modelling tools that can be used to assess the implications of di7erent

strategies within complex production systems at the landscape scale, and this study

summary presents some of the applications (and results) across three agro-forestry

systems in Africa.

The four case studies vary in terms of the granularity of the datasets used (which in turn

depends on the geographical scope of the study), production systems versus production

practices, and the role of modelling. As such, the results not only look back to the achieve-

ments in Phase I but also look forward to the options for new research in Phase II. The case

studies are presented in the Appendices. (II-V)

Taking stock: What have we learned from the exploratory studies?The exploratory studies provide a proof-of-concept for TEEBAgFood, in that they demon-

strate that it is possible and necessary to evaluate and then value agro-ecological systems

at di7erent scales, across a diversity of systems, and assessing trade-o7s (e.g. higher yields

versus lower agro-biodiversity).

48

Biodiversity

The exploratory studies were tasked to consider the link between biodiversity and agricul-

tural production. This is a complex and emerging field of enquiry3, approached in di7erent

ways across the exploratory studies. The livestock consortium developed a methodology

that links production to land-use change modelled under GLOBIO4; this was then linked to

a measure of biodiversity loss (Mean Species Abundance, or MSA5). Global databases of

biome values were then used to estimate the value of this loss, but this valuation was par-

tial and did not fully address location-specific ecological and socio-economic conditions.

So the analysis is useful as a point of departure for future TEEBAgFood work but such

analysis needs to be developed further in Phase II.

Impacts and Externalities

Each exploratory study provided estimates for some subset of the externalities and im-

pacts set out in the TEEBAgFood valuation framework. This subset di7ered across studies,

which is to be expected given the nature of the sectors. These choices are explained in the

main exploratory study reports. TEEBAgFood will look to add to this subset of externalities

and impacts within some of the six agricultural sectors in Phase II.

Extending the scope of work

The rice and livestock studies provided evidence of the benefits of mixed systems. The

scope of work in Phase II will be extended to include not only new agricultural sectors

(such as soy or quinoa) but also further assessment of mixed systems. Mixed systems can

include but are not limited to increasing diversity at the field, farm, or landscape scale, as

well as over time (for example crop rotations, agroforestry systems, polycultures, or the

management of field margins as bu7ers and barriers). As such, we must first develop a

typology of mixed systems and then assess impacts and dependencies for the selected

systems. There is also a need to consider land restoration, and again this requires the de-

velopment of appropriate case studies to provide coverage of the heterogeneity across a

range of agricultural landscapes.

Such extensions (to include mixed systems, land restoration and more sector-specific eco-

system impacts and dependencies) are extensions at the farm-level. TEEBAgFood Phase

II will include scenario analysis and spatially explicit modelling in complex multi-scalar

agro-ecological systems (see Box 4.2).

Such modelling can help explore potential alternatives to business as usual situations and

identify solutions and opportunities for change by considering the influence of factors

along the whole value chain, from farming practice and production, processing and dis-

tribution to consumer behaviour and choice. Combined with economic valuation, scenario

analysis can help clarify the costs and benefits of di7erent strategies, who will bear those

costs and where they will be borne.

49

Box 4.2 Modelling trade-o$s between potential future agriculture development and biodiversity

and ecosystem services in the Andes, Mekong and African Great Lakes6

UNEP-WCMC have developed an analytical framework that can provide spatially-explicit infor-

mation and analyses on the e7ects of di7erent potential future pathways of agricultural develop-

ment on biodiversity and ecosystem services at multiple geographic scales. These pathways are

determined by di7erent plausible future socio-economic scenarios that a7ect the agricultural val-

ue chain through changes in human population, consumption patterns, commodity markets and

agricultural production. The framework was applied in three regions (Andes, Mekong Basin and

Great Lakes of East and Central Africa) for two groups of scenarios, modelled using the IMPACT

economic model7 and the LandSHIFT8 land use change model, in each case for sub-watersheds:

1. Global scenarios of change up to 2050 using Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) with

land-use change modelling at 5-arc minute resolution (~9 km)

2. Regionally-developed scenarios for three countries in each region with land-use change

modelling at higher resolution (~1 km)

The study found that, in the Mekong region, meat production is expected to triple under almost all

scenarios. By 2050 meat production is projected to surpass demand in Viet Nam while Cambo-

dia and Lao PDR will need to import meat to satisfy domestic demand (Figure 4.2). With regards

to crops, rice production in Viet Nam is projected to increase only marginally by 2050 and to

decrease in China.

Figure 4.2 Di$erence between domestic production and demand for meat products in Cam-

bodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam between 2005 and 2050 for the Land of the Golden Mekong

regional scenario (most positive scenario modelled using IMPACT)

Source: Robinson, S. et al. (Forthcoming) ‘The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade

(IMPACT); Model description for version 3.x’, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

50

Feedback loops: Ecosystem health-human healthThe TEEBAgFood framework set out in Chapter 3 includes health impacts and externalities.

A methodological approach to value human health impacts from pesticide and fertiliser

applications (their e7ects on air and water quality) has been developed for the exploratory

studies (see Box 4.3). Although a useful first step, it is partial both in terms of scope and

also might be improved with further field studies and geo-spatial data.

The relationship between ecosystem health and human health is complex and can be

fully addressed only in a systematic framework that considers the food system as a ‘die-

tary pattern enabler’. The type of dietary pattern enabled (made easy to access and con-

sume) and, essentially, disabled (made di6cult to access and/or consume) depends on

a range of policy and structural developments10. Human health is impacted in a variety

Throughout the region the area of cropland is projected to decrease for all scenarios while pas-

ture areas expand, in particular in eastern Thailand and surrounding Lake Tonle Sap in Cambodia.

Under most scenarios, agricultural expansion is mainly on land already under agricultural use, or

natural grass-and shrubland. This is critical for TEEBAgFood as the agricultural expansion leads

to loss of habitat and consistent declines in biodiversity and ecosystem function values (including

food production). These results, including for the other regions, can be further explored at http://

macarthur.unep-wcmc.org/.

Box 4.3: Assessing impacts on human health9

Each and every individual human life is priceless and it would be morally reprehensible to value

life per se. What does seem more defensible is to value the loss in productivity and income that

arises from illness or decreased life expectancy, i.e. valuing the ‘economic component’, and the

economic component alone, of health outcomes.

Health externalities are one of the hidden costs of the eco-agri-food systems complex and valuing

them makes them more visible to the decision-maker, but we have to be cautious in our approach.

In the same way that TEEB does not support the commodification of nature, similarly it does not

support in any manner or form the commodification of human health outcomes. Just because we

might value the loss of productivity from an illness does not mean that we accept an outcome

which causes such illness. For policy-makers, it is useful to know in the aggregate what e7ects

di7erent policy interventions have on human health as this in turn a7ects economic output.

In TEEBAgFood Phase I, the metric used for this economic valuation is disability adjusted life

years (DALYs). This metric quantifies the burden of disease on human populations and can be

thought of as one year of healthy life lost. The methodological steps applied in the rice, palm oil

and livestock exploratory studies are outlined below:

51

1. Measure changes in physical conditions, such as an increase in the concentration of a

pollutant in the atmosphere. This also includes the identification of the drivers for change,

such as the use of pesticide inputs.

2. Biophysical modelling of the impacts caused by changing physical conditions. This in-

cludes identifying factors such as the endpoint of pesticides in the environment, for ex-

ample human beings, and quantification of changes in DALYs caused by the ingestion or

inhalation of pesticides.

3. The final step involves the economic modelling component of the valuation. This in-

cludes the identification of the final recipient of the impact, such as local populations who

are negatively impacted by ingesting or inhaling pesticides, and then selecting an appropri-

ate valuation technique to monetize the change in biophysical conditions.

There are a number of methodological challenges. Pollutants emitted to the environment

disperse in di7erent ways to a7ect human health, but country-specific models simply do not

exist in all instances. Phase I results estimate e7ects by disease type, disaggregated into can-

cer and non-cancer diseases, calculating the damage on the total human population, rather

than on specific actors or sections of society. More granular and detailed modelling could

overcome these issues.

There is also the more fundamental question of which metric to use. The quantification of

DALYs in general and in this study includes years of healthy life lost due to disability, and years

of life lost due to premature death. If an inappropriate valuation approach is applied (step 3

above), then the use of DALYs might be challenged on the basis that it assumes that ‘disability

prevents work’; this is not what the data tells us. However, in TEEBAgFood Phase I, the valu-

ation methodologies used in step 3 accounted for wider changes in quality of life (including

pain and discomfort). We will explore the alternative metrics in Phase II to quantify impacts

on human health, such as quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Interim and indicative findings from Phase I suggest that health externalities comprise a sig-

nificant portion of total (monetized) impacts. A study on land conversion techniques for palm

oil producers in Indonesia highlights how the impacts on human health from GHG and air

pollutant emissions vary with the method employed. Land conversion options include both

burning and mechanically clearing vegetation in primary forest, disturbed forest, or grass-

land ecosystems. These ecosystems are supported by various types of soil which have been

categorized as either mineral or peat soils; the latter can release vast amounts of CO2 when

burnt. Results indicate that, when converting primary forest on peat soils by burning the na-

tive vegetation, the health impacts of haze constitute 37 per cent of the total impact costs.

52

of ways. The same practices that can have adverse ecosystem health impacts can also

have adverse human health impacts (for example nitrate contamination of groundwater11

or tillage-driven wind erosion12). The human impacts can be more distant – for example

pesticide contamination of vegetables shipped to market13 - while the ecosystem impacts

are very local (e.g. destruction of native pollinators14). The reverse may also apply.

While the individual case studies conducted in Phase I can say much about the direct re-

lationships (e.g. potential for pesticide poisoning), they cannot say much about the indirect

or distant relationships and impacts. In addition, there are human health impacts that need

an even larger landscape and system level analysis that can be addressed more fully in

Phase II. For example, it is clear to most that the best way to approach the notion of food

security (both under- and over-nutrition) in a highly-populated world is to consider dietary

patterns and shifts over time15. In Phase II, it will be useful to contextualize the farm and

landscape level analysis to consider two downstream e7ects: first, the ability of systems

with greater levels of ecosystem resilience to meet anticipated food demands (i.e. ‘enough

food’), and second, the ability of these systems to ‘fit into’ a healthy eating pattern that can

simultaneously meet cultural and public health needs (i.e. the ‘best food plate’) as well as

providing sustainable livelihoods for the greatest number of citizens.

Achieving this will be challenged due to increasing temperatures and more variable pre-

cipitation, which are expected to reduce crop yields in many tropical developing regions. In

some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 per

cent by 202016. This will likely exacerbate undernutrition in developing countries (which

today causes 3.5 million deaths per year), both directly due to reduced food supply as well

as indirectly by increasing susceptibility to diseases such as diarrhoea, malaria, and res-

piratory infections17.

There are three principal pathways by which eco-agri-food systems impact human health:

diet, environmental (air, water and chemical quality), and vector borne diseases (see Box

4.4). In summary, how we process, distribute, market and then consume food a7ects health

outcomes, and our evolving attitude to food and nutrition a7ects our cultural identity (and

vice versa). This will be a key focus of TEEBAgFood Phase II.

Policy as a cause and catalyst for changeThe success of TEEBAgFood as a project depends on the extent to which it catalyses

change in the eco-agri-food systems complex. Policy intervention comes in disparate

forms and also is targeted at di7erent constituencies. This section focuses on the range of

policy interventions. TEEBAgFood Phase I has in the main focused on the first two steps in

the TEEB Approach, namely ‘recognizing’ and ‘demonstrating’ the value of ecosystems and

biodiversity to the eco-agri-food systems complex. This will continue and expand in Phase

53

Box 4.4 Pathways by which eco-agri-food systems impact human health

Diet: Caloric intake and the composition of the foods we eat (dietary diversity and pattern)

is a fundamental element of human health and an important driver of the double burden of

disease. These not only impact human well-being but have quantifiable health care costs.

For example Murray18 estimates that following the ‘Global Burden of Disease’ (GBD) recom-

mended diet would have reduced US health expenditure in 2006-2010 by US$130 billion

per year – a six per cent reduction19. Another study20 similarly demonstrates that changing

to a Mediterranean, pescatarian, or vegetarian diet can reduce the relative risk of mortality

by type II diabetes by 16 to 41 per cent and coronary mortality by 20 to 26 per cent. Murray

provides a provocative thought experiment – suggesting that if a goal were to provide the

global population with the “low risk diet”, we would have to increase fruit, nut and vegetable

production by 44, 68, and 11 per cent respectively, while reducing red meat and whole grain

production by 80 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.

Environmental: Agricultural practices can have important impacts on air and water quali-

ty. They can also increase human exposure to (foreign) chemical compounds. Agricultural

practices such as burning for clearing fields or post-harvest field management degrade air

quality with quantifiable impacts on human health. In Sumatra21, recent peat fires associated

with clearing of agricultural land have forced the evacuation of infants from the region with

air quality indices remaining above 1000 for several weeks (>300 is deemed dangerous).

Vector-Borne Diseases: Changes in agricultural land use changes risk exposure to vec-

tor-borne diseases. Flooding of agricultural lands for rice cultivation can increase exposure to

malarial vectors – particularly when residences are adjacent to irrigated areas as they are in

many parts of the world22. Similarly the impact of agricultural simplification can amplify dis-

ease risk. Studies of landscape fragmentation in the Northeast US has shown that small for-

est patches with low mammal diversity amplify Lyme disease, whereas larger forest patches

in the same landscapes can dilute and reduce disease transmission23. Water-borne diseases

can be impacted by aquatic agricultural systems. The combined e7ect of introduced Nile

perch and the invasive water hyacinth in the Lake Victoria Basin have increased the incidence

of schistosomiasis in the region with as of yet unmeasurable health related costs24.

II, but the focus will include ‘capturing’ these values. There are many types of policies that

can capture values, and equally many ways of categorizing them:

1. Supply-side measures (how food and fibres are produced) and demand-side meas-

ures (how they are consumed, e.g. measures to reduce food waste and measures to

negate the recent shift in food consumption patterns towards a ‘Western diet’, especially

54

Box 4.5 Market-based measures: removing perverse incentives

Perverse subsidies encourage behaviours which have negative impacts on ecosystems and

biodiversity on which output depends, therein a7ecting food security. Examples can be found

across a range of eco-agri-food systems27. In Botswana, loan schemes have supported the

purchase of livestock that can stimulate overgrazing on communal rangelands around settle-

ments. Overgrazing and desertification can lead to acute poverty, leading to the overharvest-

ing of fuelwood and other products to sell as a means of earning an income.

Subsidies are very common in the agriculture sector. Across the OECD28, for example, coun-

tries transfer - on average - US$250 billion annually in support to the agriculture sector. Not

all of these have a negative impact on the natural environment. Trends show that the com-

position of producer support is tending to include a higher proportion of support decoupled

from production requirements. In this context, support based on commodity outputs dropped

increased meat and excess calorie consumption25).

2. Types of policy instruments, grouped as market-based (removing market failures and

distortions, and incentivizing the uptake of good practice) and regulatory (mandatory

government legislation). Examples provided in Boxes 4.5 and 4.6.

3. Institutional changes to the environment in which farmers operate. These interven-

tions directly and indirectly influence the choice of production methods and what is pro-

duced, as well as where the costs and benefits of this production fall within the econo-

my. Local in-country institutional changes include shifts in tenure arrangements. Fiscal

measures also significantly influence farmer behaviour, such as agricultural subsidies for

pesticides or on-farm fuel use. Example provided in Box 4.7.

4. Institutional changes to the environment in which food processors and distributors

operate. These directly and indirectly influence the shaping of supply chains and the

ability of people within the supply chain to ensure sustainable livelihoods for themselves.

Fiscal measures are also relevant here, such as rules on corporation tax.

5. Cross-cutting policies include information-provision such as eco-labelling (either vol-

untary or mandatory), and the provision of appropriate and targeted agricultural knowl-

edge, science and technology (AKST). Examples provided in Boxes 4.8 and 4.9.

6. Making a broader set of technologies and management options available for farmers.

This includes in the main further scientific research to increase and secure agricultural

production while at the same time maintaining or ideally enhancing other ecosystem

services, i.e. ‘ecological infrastructure’ investments.

55

from over US$200 billion in 1990 (30 per cent of gross farm receipts) to US$110 billion (8

per cent of gross farm receipts) in 2011. Payments based on non-commodity criteria, includ-

ing the retirement of land and other practices that support biodiversity, increased from US$3

billion in 2000 to over US$5 billion in 2010.

Indonesia provides a specific example of this shift in support29. In the early 1980s, the over-

use of pesticides had wiped out the natural enemies of many pests, including the brown

rice planthopper, leading to US$1.5 billion worth of damage to the rice sector from pest in-

festations. As a response, in 1986, the Indonesian government removed pesticide subsidies

(realizing a fiscal saving to the public purse of US$100 million) and banned the import of

broad spectrum pesticides. Farmers and agri-business responded to this market-based in-

tervention: pesticide applications halved while rice production grew by three million tonnes

over four years. Part of this increase in yields was brought about by concurrent programme

to support Integrated Pest Management, a programme that was well-funded and widely dis-

seminated nationally.

However, researchers found that while paying the agriculture industry to help the environment

seems to be working, the agri-environment schemes are still a drop in the ocean compared

to huge government subsidies received by farming industries for environmentally damag-

ing practices30. They argue for a redressing of the massive imbalance between government

money spent on farming subsidies, and that spent on lessening the damage farming does to

the environment.

Box 4.6 Market-based measures: ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ (PES) schemes

Agents in agricultural systems can receive positive financial rewards for the ecosystem ser-

vices they provide. An interesting example is the Costa Rica PES program which has been

successful in incentivizing forest conservation31, in part through the use of targeting tools to

determine where payments should be made in order to increase the e6ciency of payments.

Examples include compensating farmers where agroforestry would help to increase connec-

tivity for wild biodiversity in addition to habitat, and targeting farms on highly erosive soils and

slopes as a means of protecting downstream hydropower infrastructure. These PES schemes

are structured so as to recognize the multiple services provided by farms and farm managers

in these landscapes.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest private-lands conservation program

in the United States. Famers enrolled in the program discontinue agricultural production on

environmentally-sensitive land and agree to cultivate plant species that improve environ-

mental health. In exchange, they receive a yearly rental payment for the duration of a 10-15

year contract. The goal of the CRP is to rehabilitate land and increase land cover, which can

in turn improve water quality, mitigate soil erosion, and reduce habitat loss32. By September

56

2015, over 24 million acres of cropland had been enrolled in the CRP, with annual rental pay-

ments of over US$1.6 billion33.

The CRP was seen to have the largest impact in the Mountain, Southern Plains, and Northern

Plains regions, where average farmland values increased by 5 to 14 per cent, 4 to 6 per cent,

and 2 to 5 per cent, respectively34. However, the program is not without unintended (and ad-

verse) impact due to the slippage e7ect. For every one hundred acres of land in the central

United States under CRP, twenty more acres of non-cropland were converted to cropland.,

This o7set the positive impacts of CRP on water erosion reduction by 9 per cent, and on wind

erosion reduction by 14 per cent35.

Another example of payments for ecosystem services is China’s Sloping Land Conver-

sion Program (SLCP), also known as the “Grain for Green” program, a supply-side payment

scheme that is one of the largest and longest-term in the world. SLCP o7ers per-hectare pay-

ments to households in the Yellow and Yangtze River Basins in exchange for converting steep

cropland back into grassland and forests. Analysis has shown that the program has positive

ecological e7ects, as well as generally positive socioeconomic impacts. The SLCP also had

broader e7ects, as it increased overall vegetation cover, increased carbon sequestration, and

controlled soil erosion, which in turn reduced dust in other countries36.

Box 4.7 Institutional changes: Meeting the Aichi targets

A 2012 report to the Convention on Biological Diversity37 estimated the resource require-

ments needed to meet its 20 globally agreed Aichi Targets. Target 5 looks at reducing the rate

of habitat loss. The costs of halving wetlands loss are estimated to be in the order of US$33

billion per year. Meeting this target would likely lead to significant benefits and hence it was

presented as an investment, however, a large proportion of the cost of achieving the target is

assumed to derive from paying compensation for loss of potential earnings (or opportunity

costs) to those carrying out activities which would degrade wetlands under business as usual.

Whether such activities would continue to be rewarded by the market however (and hence justi-

fy the level of compensation that might be required) can also be impacted by the economic and

institutional environment. That is, if businesses impacting wetlands in some way faced more of

the wider costs of so doing, they would make di7erent decisions. US$30 billion of the US$33

billion resource requirement is made up of payments relating to opportunity costs.

An alternate example which demonstrates how agriculture management can make a positive

contribution to meeting Aichi targets on habitat loss is found in California rice productions

systems38. The shifting from fall burning of rice stubble to winter flooding of fields as a means

of controlling agricultural waste and diseases led to the creation of 220,000 ha of wetlands

which are used by more than 250 species of waterfowl migrating through the Pacific flyway.

Flooded rice fields have thus doubled the wetland habitat in the central valley of California.

57

The California Department of Fish and Game estimates that it would cost US$2 billion to

purchase the equivalent in habitat, and more than US$35 million per year in management

costs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife likewise estimate that duck hunting in these fields contributes

US$1.2 billion in hunting licenses, merchandise and jobs.

Box 4.8 Information-provision on the supply-side: Investing in appropriate ‘agricultural

knowledge, science and technology’ (AKST)

There is an urgent need for novel technologies that permit farmers to e6ciently make use

of biodiversity and ecosystems’ invisible benefits, including pollination, pest control services,

and nutrient cycling and storage. Production systems that utilize agro-biodiversity conjure

images of low tech production systems reserved for marginalized communities and eccen-

trics, but this image is erroneous.

Research highlights the contribution of precision agriculture to improving both yields and

ecosystem services of production systems, i.e. potential ‘win-win’ outcomes39. Precision agri-

culture permits farmers to apply external inputs at dosage levels that meet plant production

needs while limiting excess run-o7 into adjacent water systems. Conservation agriculture

similarly shows promise for increasing yields, and the capacity of production systems to store

carbon, but may require specific technologies that facilitate seeding, weeding, and harvesting.

This is also the case with some polycultures for which there is still a great deal of need, and

room for innovation in management technologies.

California rice serves as a good example of where remote technologies are supporting sus-

tainability40. The main trade-o7 with winter flooding is the increase in emissions of methane

as a greenhouse gas. In order to maintain the habitat values provided by flooding, but limiting

the extent and the duration of flooding to reduce methane emissions, The Nature Conservan-

cy and farmers are using crowd-sourced data on locations of migratory flocks as they move

through the valley to bid on the rental of fields which are flooded on an as-needed basis.

An ecosystem based approach to agriculture and food does not imply one that is devoid of

technology - quite the opposite. This is an area of tremendous need and innovation.

To advance these innovations, expanded investment in agricultural knowledge, science, and

technology (AKST) is needed, as well as a shift in the nature of investment. AKST investment

has risen consistently since 1980, though global rates flattened in the 1990s and public

investment dropped in 26 countries in Sub Saharan Africa during that time41. From 2000

to 2008, global public investment rose from US$26.1 to US$31.7 billion, and low-and mid-

dle-income countries now account for half of all AKST investment. However, funding remains

clustered in a small number of countries, particularly the United States, Japan, India, Brazil,

and China, which drove 38 per cent of investment growth over that period42.

58

Analysis shows that rates of return on AKST have remained high (40 to 50 per cent) across

commodities, countries, and regions over time. However, investment has been focused almost

exclusively on conventional agriculture. In 2014, only 15 per cent of the USDA’s Research, Ex-

tension, and Economics US$2.8 billion budget was used to support projects involving agro-

ecology43.This investment gap is a major challenge, as is the need for broader investment in

locally-specific technologies. CGIAR’s ‘Di7usion and Impacts of Improved Varieties in Africa’

project found that while overall research and cultivated area of modern varieties has in-

creased substantially across Africa (from 20 to 35 per cent between 1998 and 2010), invest-

ment remains heavily focused on maize, while research intensity for widely cultivated crops

such as cassava, yams, and pearl millet is disproportionately low relative to their cultivation

and production values44.

Box 4.9 Information-provision on the demand-side: Eco-labelling as a means to provide

access to market

Labelling of food products has been a critical means of communicating both the positive and

negative externalities of agriculture to the consumer, while exhibiting tremendous capacity

to influence preference for not only specific commodities, but also for production practices

associated with agricultural systems. Several labels are well known, including Organic, Fair-

trade, Rainforest Alliance and GMO free. The “Responsibly Grown” label45 favoured by Whole

Food associates fresh produce with a ‘good’, ‘better’, ‘best’ label in relation to the production

methods used, focusing on: soil health; impacts on air, energy and climate; waste reduction;

farmer welfare; water conservation and protection; ecosystems and biodiversity; and finally

pest management. TEEBAgFood can contribute to the development of such schemes by

providing credible data and analysis on such metrics, so as to preserve the integrity of these

labels as they scale up for large, corporate users46.

Challenges with labelling are many, though their impact on moving the sustainability agenda

forward has been undeniable. Of particular relevance is the current inability of certification

and labelling to address landscape-scale costs and benefits of eco-agri-food systems. The

assumption is that the activities at the farm level are scalable and yield relevant o7-farm

benefits, which is often not the case. The demand for eco-labelled products is in the main

restricted to sophisticated and a�uent consumers, typically in developed country markets.

Shifting labelling from this niche sector to the mainstream is challenging, but a significant

opportunity in terms of providing small-scale producers (in particular) access to markets.

While certification schemes for foods have succeeded in many parts of the world, they de-

pend upon monitoring and transparency that is not reproducible in the street vendor and

local market environment that are common in developing countries47.

59

Deciding which type of policy to choose depends on the local policy context. Which stake-

holders are a7ected by and/or have a voice in any change? What is the distribution of

winners and losers arising from a proposed change, and are individuals within these groups

ready or able to adapt and innovate? How do these systems interact with other systems in

the same landscape and what is their aggregate impact on ecosystems and biodiversity?

What are the mechanisms available for capturing the value of nature (e.g. market-based,

information-provision, regulatory)? What are the tools for understanding strategies that

maximize human livelihood development/ preservation within the ‘green zone’ of planetary

boundaries26? What are the institutional and governance regimes? What are the factors

that are key to expediting or hindering the adoption of change? Phase I of the TEEBAgFood

study touched on these questions, but Phase II will do so more explicitly.

What Boxes 4.5-4.9 show is that there is a range of policy options that can be used to

impact upon the eco-agri-food systems complex. The optimal choice of policy instrument

depends on case-specific social, financial, ecological and economic conditions, and the

institutional and governance conditions, i.e. what might be termed the ‘policy space’. This

is the space that TEEBAgFood will ultimately inform, toward creating real transformative

change.

It is important to recall why TEEBAgFood requires the development of research and the

appraisal of policy options: the call for the end of business-as-usual.

A call for the end of business-as-usual and the need to act nowThis Interim Report has shown that business as usual, i.e. neglecting the value of the pos-

itive and negative externalities of the eco-agri-food complex, will in turn lead to decisions

that are undermining the productive capacity of ecosystems. There is a clear and present

danger in that we are fast approaching (or indeed transgressing) planetary boundaries;

some elements of the agri-food sector are contributing significantly to our collective path-

way towards potential systemic ‘overshoot and collapse’. The Precautionary Principle48

should steer our collective mindsets and our private and public actions, but far too often

the argument is made that we ‘cannot a7ord sustainability in our agri-food systems’, or that

such a perspective is a form of neo-colonialism from the richer nations to stifle develop-

ment in the developing world.

The first aim of TEEBAgFood is to make the case that it is in the best interests of individual

farmers, agri-businesses, municipalities and governments to account for the previously

economically invisible externalities and impacts in the eco-agri-food systems complex.

This is first and foremost about self-interest. Failures to account for the benefits that eco-

systems and biodiversity provide for food and agriculture leads to such benefits being

eroded over time – and that time has already begun. It is the here and now. It is (for in-

60

stance) about the adoption of appropriate Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology

to provide solutions to today’s problems of freshwater scarcity and poor water quality, and

understanding that the core source of problems is likely o7-farm. It is about agri-business

responding today to consumers increasingly turning to eco-labelling to make informed

decisions that are hitting their bottom line. It is about national governments recognizing

that short term yield increases from agricultural encroachment adversely impact today on

other economic sectors in the national economy.

So there is a need to act now out of self-interest, and because of today’s problems. But

there is also the need to take a medium-term perspective, and most projections are of

worsening livelihood outcomes in farming, especially for the family farmer. We must de-

sign an economic system that operates e7ectively across generations, and even when

self-interested behaviour does not coincide with societal interests.

How can TEEBAgFood contribute to change?The TEEBAgFood report will focus on developing the approaches (whether in terms of

knowledge generation or policies) which are needed to allow decision makers at all levels

to make choices that together will lead to a new scenario where human and ecosystem

health outcomes are reinforced by an eco-agri-food systems complex that targets these

through the products it generates and the way it delivers them. This is the high-level aspi-

ration. To achieve this, TEEBAgFood will commission and leverage new research streams,

develop a community of practice and apply a communication strategy.

Commissioning and leveraging research on all aspects of the eco-agri-food systems complex

This chapter has set out some of the lessons learned from the exploratory studies, includ-

ing gaps. In terms of research to recognize the value of ecosystems and biodiversity, we

have signalled the need to have some more ‘deep dive’ assessments (c.f. Maasai Steppe

case study), studies that look at integrated production systems including production prac-

tices (c.f. rice case study) and also a work stream on health externalities, particularly (but

not exclusively) beyond the farm gate. All such analyses require scenario assessment and

di7erent types of modelling to support this (c.f. agro-forestry case study). Options include

extensions of current sector foci and/or the addition of new production systems, especially

mixed systems, and land degradation. All this work is on theoretical foundations.

There is also research – of a di7erent nature – that needs to be carried out on policy ap-

praisal, i.e. capturing values. This work stream may align directly with the case studies, e.g.

what are the governance regimes, legal preparedness for and institutional arrangements

around policy implementation in Tanzania to enable a switch to extended Ngitili agrofor-

estry systems with increased tree cover, or to secure pastoralism in the Maasai Steppe?

But there is also a need for policy research that is distinct from the case studies, e.g. draw-

61

ing lessons from behavioural science to stimulate shifts in diets.

Linked to these two overarching research themes, TEEBAgFood intends to publish its two

major reports (‘TEEBAgFood Scientific & Economic Foundations’ and ‘TEEBAgFood Poli-

cies, Production & Consumption’) in late 2016 and early 2017, respectively.

The first TEEBAgFood technical report (‘Foundations’) will set out the scientific and eco-

nomic underpinnings of the evaluation of the nexus between the agri-food sector, biodi-

versity and ecosystem services, and externalities from agriculture on a global scale. It will

need to connect ecological and agricultural science, and ecological and agricultural eco-

nomics, in order to produce a state-of-the-art, comprehensive overview of existing thinking

in these two areas.

A second technical report (‘Policies’) will draw from the scientific and economic founda-

tions of its antecedent in order to provide a policy evaluation of di7erent agro-ecological

production systems in di7erent socio-economic contexts. The Policies report will consider

a wide range of policy interventions in the domains of development, food, climate, health,

and energy, assessed across the entire value chain, from production to consumption. The

policy questions that could be assessed are virtually limitless.

For instance, to what extent (if any) can the externalities of large scale livestock ranching

in Brazil be compared and contrasted with small-scale pastoralism in Tanzania? What

is the appropriate lens through which to view di7erent types of production systems and

agricultural practices? E6ciency? Equity and distributional issues as they a7ect rural live-

lihoods? Food security? Is it conceivable that, given OECD-FAO projections on population

projections and changes in diet (to a more animal protein-rich diet) that up-scaling small-

scale production could meet demand projections? Is this even the right question, i.e. should

we be voicing concerns about food waste and also the appropriateness or otherwise of a

meat-rich diet? If so what are the range and types of policy levers and can they be as-

sessed in isolation?

We mention commissioning and leveraging research. This is linked to developing a TEEB

Community of Practice.

Developing a TEEBAgFood Community of Practice: A call to get involved

The TEEBAgFood vision statement is one that cannot be achieved by any one project or

agency in isolation. In previous TEEB assessments, TEEB was highly successful in devel-

oping and mobilizing a community of practice around its core vision, i.e. determining the

benefits of action and cost of policy inaction associated with conserving biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning. Hundreds of scientists from multiple disciplinary areas provided

62

pro bono inputs to TEEB, policy-makers made frequent reference to TEEB (including ex-

plicit mention in National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans), and the TEEB for Busi-

ness Coalition (now The Natural Capital Coalition) was spawned.

TEEBAgFood has already shown the need to look at the eco-agri-food systems complex

more broadly, commissioning research and generating policy change through multi-disci-

plinary and multi-sectoral work which brings together a community of practice and knowl-

edge which will have the capacity to deliver benefits beyond the boundaries of the studies

commissioned. As with the original TEEB study which has gone on to stimulate similar

research in many countries and businesses around the world, it is intended that the

TEEBAgFood community will do the same.

We have begun to develop a TEEBAgFood community of practice and hope that you, the

reader, will join us in this journey. Please do send TEEBAgFood any evidence or share expe-

riences that can contribute to our shared vision. Send us an email (teeb.agfood@unep.org)

and follow us on social media (Twitter @teeb4me and facebook.com/teeb4me)

Dissemination, outreach and communications through novel means

TEEBAgFood is collaborating with the Global Alliance for the Future of Food49 and the

Food Tank50 to develop a communications and outreach strategy that can mobilize stake-

holders to respond to the results of the study. This coordinated communications strategy

allows access to dissemination via United Nations channels and associated high-level po-

litical fora, as well as the Global Alliance network which ranges from large corporations to

organizations supporting grass-root activism across the globe. The Global Alliance mem-

bership includes Foundations that have a special interest in innovative media applications.

Using media of all kinds –from peer-reviewed academic journals through to social media

– will allow the work of TEEBAgFood to reach a wide audience and have the impact we

hope to achieve. We need to develop alternative pathways to bring about change. Food

and agricultural systems touch all our lives in so many di7erent ways, and so our outreach

activities must be similarly varied and innovative – but also targeted. Again, we hope that

the reader can contribute to this aspect of TEEBAgFood.

1 FAO (2013) FAO in the 21st century: Ensuring food security in a changing world, Rome.2 This is partly demonstrated in the agro-forestry and rice exploratory studies.3 Díaz S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. & Larigauderie, A. (2015) A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to People. PLoS Biol 13(1), e1002040. 4 GLOBIO (2015) ‘GLOBIO,’ accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.globio.info/]. 5 GLOBIO (2015) ‘More about MSA,’ accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.globio.info/background-msa]. 6 Box developed by Marieke Sassen and Arnout van Soesbergen, UNEP-WCMC.

63

7 Robinson, S., Mason-D’Croz, D., Islam, S., Sulser, T., Gueneau, A., Pitois, G. & Rosegrant, M. (Forthcoming) ‘The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT); Model description for version 3.x’, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.8 Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Koch, J., Koelking, C., Lapola, D., Schuengel, J. & Priess, J. (2011) ‘An Integrated Approach to Modelling Land-Use Change on Continental and Global Scales’, Environmental Modelling and Software, 26, 1041–51.9 Box developed by Chris Baldock, Trucost (http://www.trucost.com/).10 Story, M., Kaphingst, K., Robinson-O’Brien, R. & Glanz, K. (2008) ‘Creating Healthy Food and Eating Environments: Policy and Environmental Approaches’, Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 253–72. 11 Inoue-Choi, M., Jones, R., Anderson, K., Cantor, K., Cerhan, J., Krasner, S., Robien, K., Weyer, P. & Ward, M. (2015) ‘Nitrate and ni-trite ingestion and risk of ovarian cancer among postmenopausal women in Iowa’, International Journal of Cancer, 137, 173–182. 12 Garcia-Chevesich, P., Alvarado, S., Near, D., Valdes, R., Valdes, J., Aguirre, J., Mena, M., Pizarro, R., Jofre, P., Vera, M. & Olivares, C. (2014) ‘Respiratory disease and particulate air pollution in Santiago Chile: Contribution of erosion particles from fine sedi-ments’, Environmental Pollution, 187, 202-205.13 Chourasiya, S., Khillare, P. & Jyethi, D. (2015) ‘Health risk assessment of organochlorine pesticide exposure through dietary in-take of vegetables grown in the periurban sites of Delhi, India’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 5793-5806.14 Goulson, D., Nicholls, C., Botias, C. & Rotheray, E. (2015) ‘Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers’, Science, 347, 1435.15 USDA & HHS (2015) Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 375-379. Accessed 17 November 2015 [http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report].16 IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.17 Black, R., Allen, L., Bhutta, Z., Caulfield, L., de Onis, M., Ezzati, M., Mathers, C. & Rivera, J. (2008) ‘Maternal and child undernu-trition: global and regional exposures and health consequences’, The Lancet, 371(9608), 243-260.18 Murray, C. (2014) ‘Metrics for Healthy Sustainable Food Systems’, Stockholm Food Forum. May 27, 2014. [https://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=hg4qBjUS_aM&index=5&list=PLCuQknRNIH2FN_0u4b37dV4uZQ_kNpqzi].19 Forouzanfar, M.H., Alexander, L., Anderson, H.R., Bachman, V.F., Birzukov, S., Brauer, M. & Burnett, R. (2015) ‘Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013’, The Lancet. 20 Tilman, D. & Clark, M. (2014) ‘Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health’, Nature, 515, 518-22.21 McCa7erty, G. (2015) ‘Indonesia begins evacuation of infants from haze a7ected regions’, CNN. October 1, 2015. [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/asia/indonesia-evacuates-babies-haze/].22 Wood, B., Beck, L., Washino, R., Hibbard, K & Salute, J. (1992) ‘Estimating high mosquito-producing rice fields using spectral and spatial data’, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13(15), 2813-2826.23 Ostfeld, R., Canham, C., Oggenfuss, K., Winchcombe, R. & Keesing, F. (2006) ‘Climate, deer, rodents, and acorns as determi-nants of variation in Lyme-disease risk’, Plos Biology 4(6), 1058-1068.24 Kitchell, J.F., Schindler, D.E., OgutuOhwayo, R., Reinthal, P.N., (1997) ‘The Nile perch in Lake Victoria: Interactions between pre-dation and fisheries’, Ecological Applications 7, 653-664.25 Popkin, B., Adair, L. & Ng, S. (2012) ‘Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries’, Nutrition Reviews, 70, 3-21.26 Ste7en, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., de Vries, W., de Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. & Sörlin, S. (2015) ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science, 347(6223).27 High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2012) ‘Re-sourcing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: A First Assessment of the Resources Required for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020’, Hyderabad.28 Van Winkle, C., Karousakis, K., Bark, R. & van der Heidi, M. (2015) ‘Biodiversity Policy Response Indicators’, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 90, OECD Publishing, Paris.29 CBD (2003) Indonesia Technical Paper, accessed on 17 November 2015 [https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-Indonesia-technical-en.pdf].30 Tanentzap, A., Lamb, A., Walker, S. & Farmer, A. (2015) ‘Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment’, PLoS Biol 13(9), e1002242.31 Porras, I., Barton, D., Miranda, M. & Chacón-Cascante, M. (2013) ‘Learning from 20 years of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica’, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.32 USDA (2015) ‘Conservation Reserve Program’, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-ser-vices/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index].33 USDA (2015) ‘CRP Contract Summary and Statistics: Monthly Summary. September 2015’, Washington, DC: Farm Service

64

Agency.34 Wu, J. and H. Lin (2010) ‘The E7ect of the Conservation Reserve Program on Land Values’, Land Economics, 86(1), 1-21.35 Wu, J. (2000) ‘Slippage E7ects of the Conservation Reserve Program’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 979-992.36 Liu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Tam, C. & Chen, X. (2008) ‘Ecological and socioeconomic e7ects of China’s policies for ecosystem services’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 9477–9482.37 High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2012).38 Colwell, M.A. (2010) ‘Habitat conservation and management’, Shorebird ecology, conservation, and management, 241-263.39 Garbach, K., Milder, J.C., DeClerck, F.A.J., Driscoll, L., Montenegro, M. and Herren, B. (Under Review) ‘Close yield and nature gaps: Multi-functionality in five systems of agroecological intensification’, IJAS. Submitted October 1, 2015.40 Robbins, J. (2014) ‘Paying Farmers to Welcome Birds’, The New York Times, New York.41 McIntyre, B., Herren, H., Wakhungu, J. & Watson, R. (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: International Assessment of Agricul-tural Science and Technology for Development Global Report, IAASTD, Washington, DC.42 Beintema, N. Stads, G.J., Fuglie, K., Heisey, P. (2012) ‘ASTI global assessment of agricultural R&D spending: developing coun-tries accelerate investment’, IFPRI.43 DeLonge, M., Miles, A. & Carlisle, L. (2016) ‘Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture’, Environmental Science & Policy, 55(1), 266-273. Advance online publication.44 Walker, T., Alene, A., Ndjeunga, J., Labarta, R., Yigezu, Y., Diagne, A., Andrade, R., Andriatsitohaina, R., De Groote, H., Mausch, K., Yirga, C., Simtowe, F., Katungi, E., Jogo, W., Jaleta, M. & Pan, S. (2014) ‘Measuring the e7ectiveness of crop improvement research in Sub-Saharan Africa from the perspectives of varietal output, adoption, and change: 20 crops, 30 countries, and 1150 culti-vars in farmers’ fields’, Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), Rome, Italy, CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat.45 Whole Foods (2015) ‘What do we measure?’ Whole Foods, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/responsibly-grown/what-we-measure].46 This issue is discussed further in: Howard, P. H. & Ja7ee, D. (2013) ‘Tensions between firm size and sustainability goals: fair trade co7ee in the United States’, Sustainability, 5(1), 72-89.47 Bell, A., Matthews, N. & Zhang, W. (In review) ‘Opportunities for improved promotion of ecosystem services in agriculture under the WEF Nexus’, Under review at The Journal for Environmental Studies and Sciences. Submitted October 2015.48 COMEST (2005) ‘The Precautionary Principle’, World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, UNESCO.49 The Global Alliance for the Future of Food, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.futureo7ood.org/].50 Food Tank, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://foodtank.com/].

Photo: ©Flickr Chany Crystal

65

Photo: ©Flickr

66

APPENDICES APPENDIX I Abstracts of TEEBAgFood exploratory studiesAPPENDIX II Valuation of rice agro-ecosystemsAPPENDIX III Livestock �bottom up� assessmentAPPENDIX IV Ecosystem services and pastoralism in the Maasai SteppeAPPENDIX V Modelling agroforestry systems

APPENDIX I

67

RICE

This study is designed to provide a comprehensive economic evaluation of the ‘eco-agri-

food systems’ complex, and to demonstrate that the economic environment in which farm-

ers operate is distorted by significant externalities, both negative and positive and a lack of

awareness of dependency on natural capital. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO) together with its partners, the International Rice Research Institute

(IRRI) and Bioversity International as well as Trucost has applied the TEEB approach to the

rice farming sector.

Rice production is essential to the food security and livelihood of around 140 million rice

farming households and provides a range of ecosystem services beyond food production

alone. At the same time, rice production has been linked to a range of di7erent environ-

mental impacts such as high GHG emissions, air and water pollution as well as a steady

increase in water consumption. As these challenges are not independent, but rather inter-

linked, reaching them is likely to require trade-o7s, and policy makers will need to make

decisions on how to address them. The TEEB rice study has set out to inform policy by

identifying which rice management practises and systems can help to reduce costs and

increase the benefits linked to rice farming. Making the invisible benefits and costs visible

will facilitate this decision-making process.

Suggested citation: Bogdanski, A., R. van Dis, Gemmill-Herren, B., Attwood, S., Baldock, C., DeClerck, F., De-Clerck, R., Lord, R., Hadi, B., Horgan, F., Rutsaert, P., Turmel, M.S. (2015) Valuation of rice agro-ecosystems. TEEB Rice. Final report. UNEP/FAO, unpublished project report for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) global initiative for Agriculture and Food.

See the full publication here: www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/rice

Abstracts of TEEBAgFoodexploratory studies

Photo: ©Shutterstock

68

LIVESTOCK

The study aims to provide evidence that will help to identify policy options for the transition

towards increased food security with sustainable livestock production systems (poultry, beef

and dairy), with particular emphasis on the role of smallholder farmers. Two separate meth-

ods were used: a ‘top-down’ approach focussing on the externalities of end products to iden-

tify the most material externalities and geographical hotspots worldwide; and a ‘bottom-up’

approach, focussing on ten livestock production systems and looking at natural capital/

human systems linkages for one of the selected livestock production systems (pastoral-

ism in Tanzania) in a holistic manner with a regional approach. The main conclusions are:

o The livestock sector is a major contributor to the global ecological footprint.

o Climate change, the loss of ecosystems and water pollution are examples of material

unpriced externalities. Most of these impacts are related to beef production.

o Livestock systems are highly context-dependent, and thus di6cult to compare.

o Smallholder dairy systems tend to have relatively high stocking rates and low animal

productivity, leading to substantial environmental impacts (high GHG emissions, high

emissions to water). Due to the land use, their impact on biodiversity is much larger com-

pared to pastoralist systems.

o The case study of the Maasai steppe in Tanzania showed that pastoralism can conserve

measurable ecosystem services and natural capital value, especially if the alternative is

farming that will eventually lead to land degradation. However, productivity in terms of

food per unit of land is low.

The message is clear: growth of the livestock sector presents many risks for natural capi-

tal, but there is much that can be done to face these risks. It is possible to produce animal

products for the world population without losing this form of wealth, if the right path is

followed. E6ciency improvements and the implementation of good agricultural practices

represent opportunities to move in that direction. Second, a single livestock production

system alone cannot supply animal products to the whole world. Finally, livestock systems

are key components of agro-ecosystems and under specific management practices can

enhance the provision of ecosystem services.

Therefore, mechanisms have to be developed to internalize external costs and incentivize

good practices, which do not a7ect food security for the poor. Internalization will help mar-

ket forces to steer the food sector towards a more sustainable track, where natural capital

is leveraged to create wealth for current as well as future generations.

Baltussen W.H.M., T. Achterbosch, E.J.M.M. Arets, A. de Blaeij, N. Erlenborn, V. Fobelets, P. Galgani. A. De Groot Ruiz, R. Hardwicke, S.J. Hiemstra, P. van Horne, O. A. Karachalios, G. Kruseman, R. Lord, W. Ouweltjes, M. Tarin Robles, T. Vellinga, L. Verkooijen (2015) Valuation of livestock eco-agri-food systems: poultry, beef and dairy, 119 p, Wageningen University and Research center, Trucost & True Price, The Hague.

See the full publication here: www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/livestock

69

AGROFORESTRY

This study determined quantitative values of provisioning, supporting and regulating eco-

system services in agroforestry systems compared to conventional agricultural practices

in sub-Saharan Africa, and the ramifications of changing these systems under di7erent

scenarios. Three case studies were used: cocoa agroforestry compared to full sun cocoa in

Ghana, co7ee agroforestry compared to maize in Ethiopia, and Ngitili compared to maize

in Tanzania. Agroforestry provides scope for halting the conversion of forests to agriculture

by enabling simultaneous production of provisioning and regulating services.

Compared to alternative options, agroforestry systems provide substantial amounts of pro-

visioning services mostly from cash and food crops and tree products. The most important

provisioning service from agroforestry systems is from cocoa and co7ee cash crops in

addition to which a variety of food values are generated. In addition, agroforestry systems

provide almost half of the biodiversity services found in intact forests and store substantial

carbon stocks with potential to generate revenue from the REDD+. Regulating and provi-

sioning ecosystem services in agroforestry systems, although mostly in consumptive and

non-market form, far outweigh those in alternative agricultural practices in the co7ee and

Ngitili cases. Therefore, strong opportunities exist for increasing the total carbon stocks and

food security values in these systems by increasing tree cover to moderate shade level, pro-

vided that this is followed by e7orts to enhance income. The reverse is true for cocoa agro-

forestry where tree cover results in substantial reduction in yield and revenues although the

productivity of the full sun system is short-lived compared to the agroforestry alternative.

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in agroforestry as a candidate for REDD+ land

use, and it has also long been recognised as a practice with strong potential for optimizing

carbon sequestration, livelihood and food security concerns. Despite this, there has been a

strong push from many governments as well as adoption decisions from many smallhold-

ers towards more simplified cash crop systems in lieu of more multifunctional agroforestry

systems. This points to the need for strengthening policy and incentive mechanisms for

promoting agroforestry and the ecosystem values the practice provides. REDD+ provides

national level scope for investing in agroforestry carbon sequestration values with po-

tential to bring together other policy and incentive mechanisms aimed at safeguarding

ecosystem services in farming landscapes. Beyond carbon, various policy and incentive

mechanisms can be applied to promote agroforestry, including strengthening of certifica-

tion, use of fiscal instruments (tax exemptions or input subsidies), strengthening land and

tree tenure rights and PES schemes.

Namirembe, S., McFatridge, S., Duguma, L., Bernard, F., Minang, P., Sassen, M., Soersbergen, A.V. and Akalu, E. (2015). Agroforestry: an attractive REDD+ policy option? 151 pp.

See the full publication here: www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/agroforestry

70

INLAND FISHERIES

The study developed a holistic assessment of di7erent production and management sce-

narios in the inland capture fisheries and freshwater aquaculture sectors taking into ac-

count the impacts, externalities and dependencies between fish production, environment,

social and economic systems. Three case studies in North America (Columbia River, CR),

Asia (Lower Mekong Basin, LMB) and Africa (Lake Victoria Basin, LVB) provided an analysis

of the economic value of the provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services of

inland capture fisheries and freshwater aquaculture under existing and alternative water

management scenarios.. The ecosystems in the case studies support a wide array of eco-

system services. Fish production – through commercial capture, tribal, recreational and

small-scale capture, as well as through aquaculture, is one of the most important provi-

sioning services of these ecosystems. However, fish production is in competition with other

water uses and is impacted by how water is managed.

Key competitors addressed in the study were hydropower generation (CR and LMB) and

use and transformation of wetlands (LVB) for agriculture and urbanisation. The case studies

demonstrated significant trade-o7s between fish production and the other uses of these

aquatic ecosystems. Externalities generated by hydropower generation and the unsustain-

able use of wetlands are substantially a7ecting fish production service in all cases.

Considering inland fisheries and freshwater aquaculture from an ecosystem services lens

is necessary for informed management. Although inland fisheries and freshwater aqua-

culture provide much more than fish, their value is under-estimated. It is imperative that

water management decisions recognize and encompass the services supplied by both

aquatic ecosystems and inland fisheries and freshwater aquaculture. Thus, an ecosystem

approach should become standard practice for the formulation of policies on water man-

agement and land use to ensure optimum benefits from the wide range of ecosystem

services provided by aquatic ecosystems.

Brugere, C., Lymer, D. and Bartley, D.M. (2015) Ecosystem services in freshwater fish production systems and aquatic ecosystems: Recognizing, demonstrating and capturing their value in food production and water management decisions. TEEB Agriculture & Food, 272 pp, UNEP, Geneva

See the full publication here: www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/inland-fisheries

71

PALM OIL

The aim of the report is to demonstrate the relevance of hidden environmental and social

impacts in palm oil production to businesses and policymakers. This is done by quantifying

and placing monetary values on the negative impacts associated with the production of

palm oil and palm kernel oil.

In the first stage of the study, there is a focus on the production of palm oil in eleven coun-

tries across Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America. Impacts on human health and eco-

system functioning that arise from the emission of greenhouse gases, air, land, and water

pollutants, as well as the use of water, and the generation of waste are quantified and then

monetized. Some of the practices that are driving these impacts include the application of

fertilisers and pesticides, as well as the type of land conversion. The second stage of the

study quantifies and monetizes the negative impacts of di7erent types of practices used in

production processes in Indonesia. A number of scenarios were developed relating to: land

conversion techniques; fertiliser application methods; whether methane is captured from

palm oil mill e�uent (POME) ponds and; social impacts arising from changing wages, sal-

ary, occupational health, and safety practices.

The main factors influencing the results in the study were the quantity and type of inputs

used, the yield of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) per hectare, and the conversion rate of FFBs to

palm oil. The results in the first stage provide businesses and policymakers with the mag-

nitude of the impact in production locations, and also highlight the practices that cause im-

pacts to human health and ecosystem functioning in each country. The study also provides

intensity values which show the countries that have the greatest impact per tonne of palm

oil produced. The second stage of the study showed that the choice of practices at various

points of the production cycle can significantly influence the magnitude of the impact. For

instance, converting rainforest to palm oil plantations can create significant human health

impacts due to the formation of haze and inhalation of other air pollutants emitted during

the land clearing process.

Shedding light on the hidden costs of palm oil production, and highlighting where costs

can be minimised, shows that opportunities exist to redress the imbalance between private

profit and public loss. Strong evidence is provided here to businesses and policymakers

that urgent and decisive action is needed to make palm oil production a more sustainable

food source for present and future generations.

Georgieva, A., Raynaud, J., Baldock, C., Fobelets, V. (2015) The business relevance for sustainability in palm oil production. Produced by Trucost and True Price on behalf of TEEB for Agriculture and Food.

See the full publication here: www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/palm-oil

72

Photo: ©Flickr Farrukh

APPENDIX II

73

Authors: Bogdanski, A., R. van Dis, Gemmill-Herren, B., Attwood, S., Baldock, C., DeClerck,

F., DeClerck, R., Lord, R., Hadi, B., Horgan, F., Rutsaert, P., & Turmel, M.S.

Context

Rice production is essential to the food security and livelihoods of around 140 million rice

farming households and provides a range of ecosystem services beyond food production.

Five case study countries were selected that cover rice farming globally and represent a

gradient from low intensified to high intensified production systems. Countries selected

were: the Philippines and Cambodia in Asia, Senegal in Africa, Costa Rica in Latin America

and California the US in North America. According to FAOstat1, Cambodia was the least

intensified country with 3.3 tonnes per hectare in Cambodia and the US had the most in-

tensified production with 9.5 tonnes per hectare.

A rice production system typology was developed. Rice systems were distinguished by

growing environments (Irrigated Lowlands; Rainfed Lowlands; and Rainfed Uplands) (Fig-

ure 1) and by management systems and practices.

The study has set out to identify farm management practices that o7er the best options to

reach synergies, and reduce tradeo7s between di7erent management objectives. Several

scenarios (Table 1) were applied to show the e7ect of the various farm management prac-

tices on di7erent environmental and/or agronomic variables:

1. The baseline scenario describes a conventional management approach, for instance

herbicide use to combat weeds.

2. The alternative scenario describes a farm management practice that is expected to de-

crease an environmental impact or to increase an ecosystem service. For instance, instead

of herbicide use, hand weeding or biological control could be practiced.

Valuation of rice agro-ecosystems

Photo: ©Thomas Sennett/World Bank

74

Figure 1 Map of di$erent rice production systems globally, showing the considerable extent

of irrigated rice (blue)

Source: IRRI (2009) ‘Rice Growing Environments’, Rice Knowledge Bank, accessed on 18 November 2015 [http://www.knowl-edgebank.irri.org/submergedsoils/index.php/rice-growing-environments/lesson-2].

Table 1 Practice and system comparisons included in the rice study

Management practices (Scenarios)

1. Preplanting Land preparation Dry tillage � puddling

Land levelling � no levelling

Minimum soil disturbance � conventional tillage

No tillage � conventional tillage

2. Growth Growth Direct seeding � transplanting

Dry seeding � wet seeding

Water management Low irrigation frequency - high irrigation frequency

Improved water management - continuous flooding

Soil fertility management Reduced mineral fertiliser use - high mineral fertiliser appli-cation

No fertiliser use � mineral fertiliser application

Organic fertiliser application - mineral fertiliser application

Organic fertiliser application - no fertiliser application

Mineral + organic fertiliser application � mineral fertiliser application only

Weed management No weed control - herbicide use

Biological weed control + hand weeding - herbicide use

Hand weeding � herbicide use

75

These management practices (scenarios) and management systems were then mapped

onto benefits and costs, as set out in Table 2.

Table 2 Benefits and costs related to rice cultivation

Reduced herbicide use � higher herbicide input

Pest and disease manage-ment

No pesticide use - pesticide use

Reduced pesticide use � higher pesticide input

3. Postproduction Residue management Winter flooding � no winter flooding

Straw incorporation � straw burning

Straw baling and removal � straw burning

Straw rolling � straw burning

Management systems

SRI � Conventional agriculture

Organic agriculture - Conventional agriculture

BENEFITS COSTS

Rice grain (Producer price of food) Water pollution

Rice straw (Nutrient value) Air pollution

Rice husk (Energy value) Land pollution

Pest control Water consumption

Nutrient cycling and soil fertility GHG emissions

Carbon storage* Labor

Ecological resilience (pests) Fertiliser

Recreational and tourism opportunities Pesticides

Flood prevention* Fuel*

Water recharge* Capital costs (e.g machinery)*

Habitat provisioning Irrigation water*

Dietary diversity Seeds*

[*=could not be covered due to data limitations]

Academic literature review coupled with biophysical modelling was used to estimate im-

pacts on both human health and ecosystem functioning for the baseline versus the al-

ternative scenario. One limitation of the rice study is that this assessment was limited to

those impacts outside the farm gate, i.e. the emission of air, land and water pollutants, and

changes in water availability.

76

In the last methodological step, management practices were upscaled from field to coun-

try level. All results – costs and benefits – are given on a per hectare basis. Knowing the

rice farming area in each country and the percentage of irrigated lowlands, rainfed low-

lands and rainfed upland systems, it was possible to calculate the production area in each

rice growing environment. Multiplying this area by the di7erence in impact between two

management practices allowed the estimation of aggregate gains, losses or savings.

Box 1 Scenario analysis: SRI versus conventional management

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) includes intermittent flooding as part of the production

package. The system advises transplanting of young (eight to ten days old) single rice seed-

lings and applying intermittent irrigation and drainage to maintain soil aeration. In addition, the

use of a mechanical rotary hoe or weeder to aerate the soil and control weeds is encouraged.

If Senegal was to change all of its irrigated lowland systems from conventional management

to SRI, about US$11 million of savings in water consumption related health and environmental

costs would be generated. At the same time, the rice producer community would gain a total

of US$17 million through yield increases – a clear synergy. If the Philippines were to change all

their rainfed lowland systems from conventional management to SRI, the rice producer com-

munity would gain a total of US$750 million through yield increases. No water consumption

costs result from this farming system as it is dependent on rainfall only.

If Cambodia was to change all its rainfed lowland systems from conventional management to

SRI, the rice producer community would gain a total of US$801 million through yield increases.

Like the Philippines, the Cambodian system is only rain-fed and thus there are no water con-

sumption costs. While the concept of SRI was originally developed under irrigated conditions,

these systems have also been adapted to rainfed lowland paddies. The SRI in rainfed lowland

systems di7er from the conventional management system in several parameters, but the

focus of included research studies is on modified water and nutrient management. In these

studies, SRI fields are moist during transplanting and drained several times during the growing

season. Trade-o7s are likely to occur between CH4 emissions when the fields are flooded and

N2O emissions when fields are drained.

Data collected in rainfed lowlands systems in Cambodia led to a value of rice production of

US$1099 per hectare when conventional management was practiced and US$1422 when

SRI was implemented2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The monetary valuation for GHG emissions in Cambodia’s rain-

fed lowlands paddies resulted in an average cost of US$690 per hectare of rice production for

conventionally managed systems and US$586 for SRI – a reduction in costs of 15 per cent.

If all rice farmers in rainfed lowlands systems in Cambodia would change to SRI, they would

increase the producer price value of rice by US$801 million. At the same time, society would

incur lower GHG emissions costs (US$258 million).

77

Results1. Increasing rice yields versus reducing water consumption

Worldwide, about 80 million hectares of irrigated lowland rice provide 75 per cent of total

rice produced. This predominant type of rice system receives about 40 per cent of the

world’s total irrigation water and 30 per cent of the world’s developed freshwater resourc-

es. The dependence on water of the rice farming sector is a huge challenge as freshwater

resources become increasingly depleted due to competing water uses from the residential

and industrial sector and as rainfall is increasingly variable due to climate change. More

e6cient water use is necessary, yet it carries a number of tradeo7s, as this study has shown.

The study sought to assess and evaluate trade-o7s resulting from irrigation management,

soil preparation and crop establishment on rice yields, on the one hand, and water con-

sumption, on the other.

The study analysed the change in yield and water consumption under continuous flooding,

alternate wetting and drying, during aerobic soils production and the system of rice intensi-

fication (SRI). The study further compared dry tillage to puddling, and direct seeding to the

transplanting of seedlings. Figure 2 shows the e7ects of SRI and conventional management

on irrigated (IL) and rainfed lowland (RL) system in Senegal, Cambodia and the Philippines.

2. Increasing rice yields versus reducing GHG emissions

Global estimates attribute about 89 per cent of rice global warming potential to CH4 emis-

sions which are due to flooding practices in irrigated and rainfed lowland systems (RL)7. To

a much smaller degree, the production and application of N-fertilisers contributes to the rice

global warming potential. Emissions from rice straw burning impact global climate change.

In addition to rice production being a major emitter of GHGs, rice systems also sequester

carbon via soil organic carbon in topsoil. Yet overall, rice production is a net producer of

greenhouse gas emissions.

This study sought to assess and evaluate the trade-o7 resulting from irrigation water man-

agement, residue management, fertiliser application and the choice of rice varieties on rice

yields on the one hand, and GHG emissions on the other. The value of rice production was

estimated on the basis of the country specific producer price received per ton of paddy

rice. Primary data on GHG emissions as reported in the peer reviewed studies was used to

model the GHG emission costs. The cost of GHG emissions was valued following the Tru-

cost GHG methodology which provides a valuation coe6cient for CO2 equivalent emissions

based on the social cost of carbon emissions.

Figure 3 shows the e7ects of SRI and conventional management on the producer price of

rice and GHG emission costs in RL systems in Cambodia.

78

Figure 2 Comparison of the e$ects of conventional management and SRI on the revenue

and environmental and health costs of water consumption per hectare in irrigated low-

land systems (IL) and rainfed lowland systems (RL)

Figure 3 Comparison of the e$ects of conventional management and SRI on the revenue of

rice production and social costs of carbon emissions per hectare in rainfed lowland systems

79

Lessons learned

The results show that the development of a solid typology is key to valuing externalities

from the agriculture and food sector. Farming is very diverse, and so are the environmental

impacts and ecosystem services that are linked to each type of production. Typologies

therefore need to zoom in on management practices and systems as much as possible to

reflect the reality of (rice) farming and the diversity of its values. It would be illusionary to

think that there is one farming sector that leads to one specific set of positive and negative

externalities.

The study results further confirm that a tradeo7 analysis is mandatory if the study is to

inform policy. Focusing on environmental impacts or ecosystem services alone without

considering the impacts on food production, for example, would fail to provide a sound

basis for decision making. One therefore needs to value all potential benefits and costs at

the same time, providing a holistic assessment of a farming system.

This requires that experimental studies provide a comprehensive data set that goes be-

yond food production alone as is typically the case in agronomic studies. Likewise, eco-

logical and environmental studies need to record agronomic values, including yields, and

widen their often restricted focus on natural resources and biodiversity alone. Furthermore,

there is a need to enhance models that can mimic agro-ecological processes where spe-

cific data points are missing, and where field studies are not feasible.

There is also a need to improve current valuation methodologies, as there is a clear lack

of those that can value agroecosystem benefits as opposed to costs. Furthermore, one

needs to better adapt current models for monetary valuation to the realities of developing

countries. Last but not least, there is a need to link economic valuations to market costs,

and avoided costs for the farmer.

While these challenges still need to be addressed before the food and agriculture sector

can be valued holistically, there is the potential to link the valuation results to the System

of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) for Agriculture. While ecosystem valua-

tions usually focus on the local level, ecosystem accounting methods aim to aggregate

information to produce statistical results at the national level. Since both areas of expertise

are still in its infancy, it is timely to join forces now in order to follow a coherent approach

in the future.

1 FAO (2015) ‘FAOStat’, accessed 26 June 2015 [http://faostat.fao.org/].2 Dumas-Johansen, M.K. (2009) ‘E7ect of the system of rice intensification on livelihood strategies for Cambodian farmers and possible carbon storage and mitigation possibilities for greenhouse gas emissions’, Master Thesis, University of Copenhagen.

80

3 Koma, Y. S. (2002) ‘Ecological System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Cambodia’, CEDAC Field Document.4 Ly, P., Jensen, L., Bruun, T., Rutz, D & de Neergaard, A. (2012) ‘The system of rice intensification: adapted practices, reported outcomes and their relevance in Cambodia’, Agricultural Systems, 113, 16-27.5 Ly, P., Jensen, L., Bruun, T. & de Neergaard, A. (2013) ‘Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the system of rice intensification (SRI) under a rain-fed lowland rice ecosystem in Cambodia’, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 97(1-3), 13-27.6 Satyanarayana, A., Thiyagarajan, T. & Upholf, N. (2007) ‘Opportunities for water saving with higher yield from the system of rice intensification’, Irrigation Science, 25(2), 99-115.7 Linquist, B., van Groenigen, J., Adviento-Borbe, M., Pittelkow, C. & van Kessel, C. (2012) ‘An agronomic assessment of green-house gas emissions from major cereal crops’, Global Change Biology, 18(1), 194-209.

Photo: ©Tri Saputo/CIFOR

APPENDIX III

81

Authors: Baltussen W, E. Arets, A. de Blaeij, T. Vellinga (WUR) P. Galgani, O. Karachalios,

A. de Groot-Ruiz (True Price)

Context

The livestock sector is of growing global importance. It is estimated that meat production

will increase by 76 per cent between 2005/2007 and 20501, and that the sector contrib-

utes significantly to a broad set of issues (land degradation; loss of biodiversity; water scar-

city; climate and water pollution) at the global level2. Livestock production systems di7er

markedly both between and within countries. A typology of ten ‘typical’ (yet hypothetical)

livestock production systems were selected:

1. Broiler production: backyard production (Tanzania); family farm (Indonesia); and indus-

trialised (the Netherlands)

2. Beef systems: pastoralism (Tanzania, India) and grassland-based system with feedlot

finishing (Brazil)

3. Dairy systems: smallholder mixed systems (Tanzania, India, and Indonesia) and a high-

ly specialized medium scale system (the Netherlands).

The research consortium attempted to characterize a particular eco-agri-food system

in-country, but every farm is di7erent. The idea is to develop a set of farm characteristics

(yield, farm inputs etc.) and then evaluate the production system based on these character-

istics (which may or may not be applicable across the country).

Therefore, using ‘Tanzanian backyard broiler production’ as a tagline for the system does

not mean that each and every such system in Tanzania will have the modelled ecosystem

impacts and dependencies. This is an important caveat that will apply equally in Phase II

of the project. We cannot say that ‘Tanzanian pastoralism is better/worse than the Indian

equivalent’ – only that the system as modelled based on our assumptions and data limita-

tions is better/worse for one or more indicator.

Livestock �bottom up� assessment

Photo: ©Shutterstock

82

For example, dairy systems can be compared with pastoralist systems that have a primary

focus on beef production. All dairy systems considered specialize in milk production and

also produce meat. Three out of the four dairy case studies are smallholders in Tanzania,

India and Indonesia, each assumed to have five cows. In Tanzania and India, farms are

assumed to rely heavily on crop residues or roadside grass/grazing, while in Indonesia rel-

atively high inputs of synthetic fertiliser and concentrates are used and zero-grazing sys-

tems are common. The ‘typical’ Dutch dairy farm system is assumed to have 85 cows. It

is ‘land-based’ in that a minimum of 80 per cent of roughage is produced on-farm (grass

and sometimes maize), and it is a ‘family farm’ in that labour is predominantly from family

members. It has high input levels (compared to the three smallholder systems) for fertiliser,

chemicals, concentrates, artificial insemination, financial capital, machinery and medicines.

Although smallholders are often associated with low input systems, high stocking densities

at farm level is becoming more normal. For the smallholder systems in scope, there were

assumed to be two hectares of land per farm, but this farm size is already above average

in many countries3. Due to the cattle to land ratio in the smallholder systems, the input of

nutrients at farm level via external feed (grass from roadsides, by-products, concentrates,

bought crop residues) is high, e.g. over 100 kg N per ha per year. Agricultural statistics show

that fertiliser inputs are high in Asia and low in Africa4, implying that the smallholder mixed

systems in scope are relatively high input systems and comparable (in per hectare terms)

to the high input levels in the Dutch dairy farm.

There is a strong contrast with the pastoral systems with stocking rates of 0.33 animals per

ha against the mixed systems with 2.5 cows per hectare. The pastoral systems are indeed

low-input systems with less than 1 kg N per ha (see Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of dairy mixed feed livestock systems and two pastoralist livestock

systems

Country Type Cattle(number)

Hectares(ha)

N-input feed (kg N /ha)

N-input fertili-ser (kg N/ ha)

Total input(kg N/ha)

Indonesia Mixed 5 2 47 64 111

India Mixed 5 2 137 100 237

Tanzania Mixed 5 2 157 4 161

Netherlands Mixed 40 150

Tanzania Pastoral 300 1000 0.2 0 0.2

India Pastoral 100 300 0.1 0 0.1

83

Given this typology of dairy systems, an analysis of ecosystem/social system/livestock

impacts and dependencies was carried out, and Table 2 provides a synopsis.

Table 2 The degree of valuation (not valued, qualitative, quantitative and monetised) per type

of relation between livestock systems/ ecosystems and social systems

Relation from/to

Not valued Qualitative Quantitative Monetised

Livestock system/ outputs

1. Raw materials2. Agro tourism

1. Food

Livestock system/socialsystem

1. Food security 1. Health effects food2. Zoonoses3. Antibiotic resistance4. Cultural heritage

Social system/ livestock system

1. Biotechnology 1. Breeding2. Machinery3. Pesticides and drugs4. Labour

1. Fertiliser as part ofnutrient balance

Ecosystem/livestock

1. Moderation of extreme events2. Pollination

1. Genetic variability

3. Erosion prevention4. Pest control5. Carbon sequestration

1. Water irrigation

Livestock/ ecosystem

1. Soil creation 1. Soil erosion 1. Manure2. Nutrient recycling3. Land use4. Species reduction5. Health externalities6. Habitat encroachment

1. Water pollution2. Greenhouse gas emissions

The exploratory studies were commissioned before the TEEBAgFood Framework was de-

veloped and contributed to the discussion on the final Framework. The rows in Table 2

provide categories of interactions within the eco-agri-food systems complex and although

they broadly map onto the Framework, the mapping is imperfect. (This will be addressed

in Phase II.) TEEBAgFood is concerned with the full gamut of impacts and dependencies,

and some of these can only be expressed in qualitative terms, whereas others may be

quantified and/or valued. Some are important but have not been assessed in this Phase I

exploratory study (column 2 – ‘Not valued’).

The main global data sources come from FAOstat and inputs of the GLEAM model of

FAO5. Country-specific data were used for valuing water pollution. In order to make like-

84

for-like comparisons across systems, an appropriate functional unit is required. For the

livestock study, this is one kilogram of animal protein.

Results

Selected results from the evaluation of dairy systems are provided in Table 3.

Table 3 Overview of quantified and valued impacts

Impact Tanzania smallholder

Indiasmallholder

Indonesia smallholder

Dutch family farm

TanzaniaPastoralist

India Pastoralist

Number of lactating cows

5 5 5 300 animals 100 animals

Output (kg of milk)

7,500 5,000 7,000 700,000 1,125 21,250

Output (kg of meat)

640 550 12,676 3,665

Costs of GHG exter-nalities

Mixed 40 150

Land use (m2 per kg of protein)

1,231 275 59 23 10,913 5,574

Biodiversity weighted land use (MSA.ha/ kg )

Pastures 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.05

Crop land 0.053 0.015 0.004 0.001 0.01 0.005

TOTAL 0.005 0.002 0.06

Nitrogen leaching (kg N per ha)

97 37 14 6 9

Provisioning ecosystem services for direct consumption

The output of the three smallholder snapshots with five cows is 7,500 kg of milk per year

for Tanzania and 7,000 kg in Indonesia, but only 5,000 kg per year in India because of

poor feed quality (a large proportion of crop residues) and periodically feed shortages. The

Dutch farm produces about 700,000 kg of milk which is almost completely sold to the

milk processing industry. In Tanzania much of the milk is for home consumption or sold lo-

cally on the informal market, whereas in parts of India the supply chain is better developed.

Besides milk, all four systems produce meat from slaughtered cows, male calves, and

heifers not used for replacing cows. The amount varies per farm from 550 kg of meat in

85

Indonesia to 15,800 kg in the Netherlands, where all the meat is sold to slaughterhouses.

In Indonesia and Tanzania a proportion of the meat is used for home consumption. There

is less beef consumption in India because cattle are considered sacred in the Hindu reli-

gion, leading to a very high number of unproductive cattle (but with high cultural value).

Bu7aloes are not considered as sacred and are slaughtered for consumption in India and

for export.

For all smallholders systems in this study, dairy production is important for the diet of the

family and local communities (with the exception of meat in parts of India). This is critically

important as TEEBAgFood is not only concerned with yield levels but the distribution of

benefits (and costs) from production. The opportunities for smallholder farmers to access

and a7ord sources of animal protein may be limited out with the production from their own

farms.

Biodiversity impacts

Biodiversity impacts are assessed based on the indicator “Mean Species Abundance of

Original Species”, MSA, which is used within the GLOBIO3 modelling framework6. What

is assessed in the biodiversity modelling is the (remaining) MSA for a given type of land

use relative to a natural reference situation and the MSA loss (1-MSA). As a result MSA is

a relative indicator between 0 and 1 and in simple terms might be described as an indica-

tor of ‘naturalness’ in a certain location. Estimating first the number of hectares of a given

land use type needed per kg protein, and then the MSA loss for each hectare of that land

use type converted, allows the development of a biodiversity footprint. In order to allow

comparisons between systems the indicator MSA.ha is used; 1 MSA.ha is equivalent to one

hectare of land that has lost 100 per cent of its diversity.

Mixed dairy systems in Tanzania, Indonesia and India have a limited direct impact on bio-

diversity and ecosystems. Per unit of land used, these impacts are very small. The cows in

the mixed dairy systems, however, are assumed to be kept indoors. Therefore the Indirect

impacts– through production of feed – are substantial and depend on the location and

intensity of crop production. Among the mixed dairy systems the MSA losses per ha used

for feed production were found to be lowest for the Tanzania mixed system (note these

are not presented in the summary Table 3). However the total amount of land and inputs

needed per kg protein produced were also highest in the Tanzanian system (Table 3, land

use). As a result the combined direct and indirect impact expressed as MSA.ha per kg of

protein in the four mixed systems ranges from 0.002 in the Netherlands to 0.058 in Tan-

zania (Table 3).

The main di7erences between the dairy systems are caused by the impact on crop land

and not on pastures. The low impact per area for the Tanzanian system (not presented in

86

Table 3) indicates that these systems may better protect ecosystems functions and integ-

rity locally, but at the same time the large areas needed for production has larger overall

biodiversity impacts. Any shift in smallholder systems should try to combine the low im-

pacts per ha with higher protein productivity.

Climate externalities of livestock production systems

GHG externalities for dairy systems in the selected snapshots vary from 5.4 USD/kg protein

for the Dutch situation to 18.2 USD/kg protein for the Indian situation. In line with recent evi-

dence7, the analysis also shows that GHGs released as part of animal husbandry processes

are primarily associated with (I) enteric fermentation in dairy systems with ruminants, (II)

organic and synthetic fertiliser and, to a lesser extent, (III) fossil fuels related to transport.

The GHG emissions per animal are lower in the smallholder systems, but expressed per

kg of animal protein, the common unit to compare these emissions, GHG emissions in the

smallholder systems are higher compared to the specialised highly productive dairy sys-

tem considered. The ranking across systems might change if mixed crop-livestock system

were assessed, looking at the whole farm instead of just the livestock component.

Carbon sequestration

In pastures, more carbon is fixated than in arable land. All dairy systems examined use a

combination of pasture (in the case of Indonesia without grazing) supplemented with crop

residues in smallholder systems and with concentrates in the Dutch system. Intensifica-

tion of dairy systems often leads to a shift to relatively more crop (by-) products. Carbon

sequestration will decline if pastures are partly replaced by crop production.

Ecosystem externalities of livestock production systems

Land occupation varies from 23 m2 per kg of protein in the Dutch system to 1231 m2 per

kg of protein in Tanzania. This di7erence is caused by di7erences in crop productivity (low

crop yield and hence low yields of crop residues in arid Tanzania compared to managed

pastures in the temperate climate of the Netherlands) and by di7erences in animal pro-

ductivities (kg protein per cow). Land occupation per se should not be considered a nega-

tive externality. For instance there is considerable evidence8, 9 that forcing pastoralists from

communally-managed rangelands is detrimental not only to their livelihoods but also to

ecosystem functioning (and also to cultural heritage).

Although the three smallholder snapshots use more land/kg protein, their nitrogen foot-

print is lower than the more intensive Dutch system. Nitrogen leaching varies from 14

kg per ha in Indonesia to 118 kg per ha in the Netherlands. Because the e7ects of nitrate

leaching are local, the emissions per hectare are important and emissions per unit of pro-

duce are only part of the story.

87

Lessons learned

The typical dairy system in a country is context depended (soil, water, climate, availability of

capital, breeding, supply chain structure, etc.) and as such the substitutability of dairy sys-

tems is low. Copying one ‘e6cient’ system to another region is di6cult. The same dataset

can give di7ering rankings across the systems depending on the unit of account, and in

Phase II we will consider the best alternatives, particularly for mixed systems. The evidence

suggests that smallholders can have a high impact on natural capital if they operate on a

high input-low output basis per ha of land. The low feed e6ciency and the lack of proper

manure management leads to high externalities per ha and also per kg of animal protein

produced. Smallholders can however perform better in terms of water pollution. Further,

it is important to note that the protein produced is more likely to be locally consumed in

these smallholder systems, and this has implications for food security that are not cap-

tured in the raw data.

The raw data for the pastoralist systems appears to indicate that the relative performance

of these systems is poor but these data are based on externalities per unit of output, and

this is arguably not the most appropriate unit of account to apply in the comparison. For in-

stance, although the biodiversity impact MSA ha/kg of animal protein is high, the biodiver-

sity impact per ha is amongst the lowest. This means that the ecosystems in which these

systems are applied remain relatively intact and as a consequence are able to provide

many other ecosystem services. Such systems are not geared to providing protein in large

quantities to people outside the system, but they are well suited to meet local demand.

Although the comparisons in this case study are useful, the data collected and analysed

does not include the social and risk uncertainty dimensions of the TEEBAgFood Frame-

work (see Chapter 3). Thus the livelihoods dimension (the significance of livestock-based

incomes is very high), the employment/migration dimension, the cultural significance of

pastoralism etc. will need to be counterweights to milk and beef productivity statistics and

these are not value components that can be assessed on a per unit of output basis.

It is for these reasons that in TEEBAgFood Phase I we commissioned a ‘deep dive’ into

Tanzanian pastoralism so as to be able to add to the results from the overall livestock

study (this Appendix), and this is discussed further in Appendix IV.

1 Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012) ‘World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision’, ESA Work. Pap, 3.2 FAO (2006) ‘Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options’, FAO, Rome.3 FAO (2015) ‘FAOStat’, accessed 26 June 2015 [http://faostat.fao.org/].4 Ibid.5 FAO (2015) Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM), accessed 26 June 2015 [http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/].

88

6 Alkemade, R., van Oorsct, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M. & ten Brink, B. (2009) ‘GLOBIO3: a framework to investi-gate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss’, Ecosystems, 12(3), 374-390.7 Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B. & Steinfeld, H. (2013) ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains – a global life cycle assessment’, FAO, Rome.8 FAO (2009) ‘The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Livestock in the Balance’, Flagship Report, FAO, Rome.9 World Bank (2009) ‘Minding the Stock: Bringing Public Policy to Bear on Livestock Sector Development’, Report No. 44010-GLB.

Photo: ©Dustin Miller

APPENDIX IV

89

Authors: P. Galgani, O. Karachalios, A. de Groot-Ruiz (True Price)

Context

Herds of Maasai pastoralists graze in the Maasai steppe, one of the regions with the high-

est concentration of wildlife in Tanzania. This area hosts some of the most visited national

parks in Tanzania. Traditionally, cattle and wildlife make use of the Maasai steppe for feed-

ing, as both wild animal populations and pastoral systems are highly adapted to the ex-

treme conditions of these arid grasslands. In the past 40 years, agricultural land cover has

been expanding rapidly owing to both inward migration from other regions in Tanzania, and

traditional nomadic local populations settling down to establish farms in the region. This

transition is influencing the landscape of the region on several levels. Arable farming is

gradually closing corridors to fertile grasslands for both wildlife and herders. Furthermore,

today’s farming practices have been shown to lead to land degradation1, which is related to

a reduction of stored carbon.

Policy makers face a critical trade-o7 regarding land conversion in the Maasai Steppe. Ex-

panding sedentary agriculture may contribute to meeting immediate food needs but caus-

es a shift in the region’s landscape, and thus changes in key ecosystem benefits. These

changes a7ect both local populations and the global community. TEEBAgFood investi-

gated the projected values of di7erent land conversion scenarios over time, to inform the

trade-o7s that policymakers face.

Methodology

The case study focuses on the value to beneficiaries situated within the region studied, i.e.

local communities (but also assessed changes in carbon sequestration and storage). What

is critical for TEEBAgFood is to value the contribution that well-functioning ecosystems

alone make to local livelihoods; we have to distinguish the role of ecosystems in value

addition from that of labour and other inputs.

Ecosystem services and pastoralismin the Maasai Steppe

Photo: ©Flickr/Harvey Barrison

90

Local biophysical and market values are used if available; when local data were not avail-

able, the analysis exclusively uses data from comparable regions, such as other rural parts

of Tanzania or the Maasai region in Kenya. The list of ecosystem services that are quan-

tified and valued can be found in Table 1 below. The last column shows those that were

considered potentially relevant but were not included due to research constraints.

Table 1 Ecosystem services in and out of scope

Crops andlivestock

Traded and subsi-stence products

Recreation Out of scope

Beef Honey and beeswax Tourism in National Parks Carbon storage Subsistence hunting

Cow milk Gum Recreational hunting

Goat meat and milk

Medicinal plants Blood from cattle

Maizethatch and poles

Water cycle regulation

Beans Wild herbs and vege-tables

Animal skins and hides

Drinking water

The value of ecosystem services were calculated for three types of land use: rangeland,

agricultural land and national parks. Three di7erent scenarios of possible futures were de-

veloped in relation to land-use change:

1. Business as usual expansion of agriculture, leading to the conversion of all land avail-

able for farming within ten years [HI scenario]

2. Expansion of agriculture at half the speed of business as usual [MID scenario]

3. Lower land conversion rate with further conversion being halted within 20 years, below

critical thresholds for ecosystem functioning [LOW scenario]

Results

The analysis was over two time horizons: (i) 0-20 years when land use is assumed to

change, and (ii) from year 21 onwards when land use is assumed in the model to be at a

steady state. The results for the first period are summarized in Figure 1.

Livestock keeping in rangelands and crop production are the two main sources of ecosys-

tem value in the Maasai steppe; in Year 0 (today) they account respectively for an esti-

mated 31 and 27 million USD per year, or 28 per cent and 30 per cent of the total annual

ecosystem benefits in the region.

91

Quantifying ecosystem value creation per hectare in Year 0, we find that using land for ag-

riculture generates the highest ecosystem benefit value from natural capital, with ecosys-

tem benefits above US$73/ha, as opposed to US$52/ha for national parks and US$18/ha

for pastoralist rangelands. When we consider the whole Maasai region, rangelands supply

the most ecosystem services because of their huge area.

Figure 1 Projections of Ecosystem Benefits to local communities in the Maasai steppe,

per year, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP)

When land use change occurs, a high conversion rate of rangeland to farmland negatively

a7ects wildlife and will reduce the increase in ecosystem benefits from national parks,

compared to the medium and low conversion rates.

Farming practices will lead to a decline in soil quality, which in turn will negatively a7ect

yield per hectare and hence ecosystem benefits of farmland. The increase in ecosystem

benefits of farming in all graphs reflects the compensation of yield reduction per hectare

by an increase in area. At the high conversion rate this is not the case anymore after year

11, and the total ecosystem benefits of farmland are decreasing. In the moderate and low

conversion rates, the area of arable land increases during the whole period. The conversion

to arable land starts at the most productive rangelands, which implies that the ecosystem

benefits of rangeland decline at a higher rate than the decline area. Additionally, the eco-

system benefits per hectare of rangeland decline, due to fragmentation.

Population growth a7ects ecosystem benefits as well for those services that are exploited

below the carrying capacity of the rangelands. This is for example the case for harvesting

firewood and wood poles for buildings. This explains the slow increase in total ecosystem

benefits of rangelands in the slow conversion scenario.

Turning to the second period (not in the graphs), the ecosystem benefits linked to national

92

parks peak in year 20 for HI and then decline, reach an equilibrium for MID and continue

growing for LOW. This is related to the e7ect of declining wildlife populations on the rev-

enues of the national parks. The rangeland ecosystem benefits will remain constant as

underexploited benefits will reach their carrying capacity. Arable land benefits will decline,

due to the continuous process of land degradation. This process can be stopped if good

farming practices were to be applied.

Additionally, the value of potentially lost carbon stocks (using the social cost of carbon)

ranges from an estimated US$23 billion in the HI scenario and US$15 billion in the LOW

scenario, considering land cover in year 0 versus land cover in year 20 across the sce-

narios. The external cost of potential losses in carbon stocks (CO2 emissions, borne by

the global population) following agricultural expansion is even higher than the cost of lost

ecosystem services for the local population.

Lessons learned

The range of ecosystem services assessed in this study is partial, as some of the benefits

of pastoralism have been left unquantified (the preservation of cultural heritage; the main-

tenance of social ties, traditions and household resilience; and biodiversity conservation

that does not accrue tourist revenue). Furthermore this study has valued ecosystem ser-

vices, but not assessed total food production. However the trade-o7 between higher food

production on farmland on the one hand versus the existence of rangeland, with its high

ecosystem values, appears clear. The challenge is to develop forms of agriculture that can

co-exist with pastoralism and that can maintain higher soil carbon stocks to halt land deg-

radation and maintain the numerous benefits for local communities over time.

TEEBAgFood needs to bring such evidence to bear on decision-making and present op-

tions for capturing the values of ecosystems and biodiversity.

1 FAO (2009) ‘Sustaining communities, livestock and wildlife in the Maasai Steppe: vital facts, observations and policy actions’, FAO, Rome.

APPENDIX V

93

Authors: Marieke Sassen and Arnout van Soesbergen (UNEP-WCMC)

Context

Agroforestry is a production system that generates a huge array of values from the local to

the global scale. Agroforestry is an agricultural practice that integrates trees with crop and/

or animal production on the same area of land. It encompasses a wide range of production

systems, from shaded plantation crops such as co7ee and cocoa, to treed rangelands or

pastures, to timber or fruit tree plantations combined with seasonal crops. Agroforestry

systems allow the diversification of farmer income and often provide additional products

such as food, medicine and wood fuel important for (poor) smallholder farmers. Beyond

the farm, agroforestry systems support the maintenance of ecosystem services at the

landscape to global levels, such as carbon sequestration, water regulation, soil retention,

biodiversity (including that which supports crop production) and landscape values.

Increased demand for food and/ or cash crops, tend to lead to a reduction of (shade) tree

cover or the conversion of mixed agroforestry systems to monoculture cropping. These

systems can produce higher yields1. However, they often require significant external inputs,

provide fewer services or negatively impact on ecosystem services at farm-level and be-

yond2, 3. Yet, there is also scope for technology to support increased yield within shaded

systems, which would help avoid conversion of additional natural habitats4. The study used modelling to evaluate the gains and losses in ecosystem services under

di7erent scenarios for three di7erent agroforestry systems: co7ee agroforestry in Ethi-

opia, cocoa agroforestry in Ghana and Ngitili agroforestry in Tanzania. The agroforestry

areas were identified and mapped by ICRAF. The WaterWorld model5 was used to analyse

changes in tree cover and their implications for the following ecosystem services: fresh-

water provision and run-o7, water quality, soil erosion and above ground carbon. By way of

example, a map of study districts and of baseline modelled modeled run-o7 within sub-ba-

sins is provided for the Tanzania case study (Figures 1 and 2).

Modelling agroforestry systems

Photo: ©Tri Saputo/CIFOR

94

Results and scenarios

1. Conversion of all areas identified under co$ee agroforestry to maize mono cropping

system (maximum canopy cover five per cent) in the Ethiopia case study: This scenario

results in variable but small impacts on water yield between districts as tree cover is re-

placed by high water use crops. Overall, there is a cumulative loss of 12 million m3 of water.

Water quality decreases for all districts and cumulative total aboveground carbon stock

decreases with 17.7 million tonnes. Soil erosion increases up to 76 per cent for one district.

2. Conversion to a full sun/lightly shaded system where shade trees are almost com-

pletely removed from existing agroforestry (maximum canopy cover 30 per cent) in the

Ghana case study. This scenario leads to increased water availability due to reduced water

use by trees, with a cumulative increase of 16 million m3 per year across all districts. Total

aboveground carbon stock decreases by approximately 533,000 tonnes of carbon while

total cumulative soil loss increases by around 913,000 tonnes annually.

3. Extended Ngitili agroforestry system with increased tree cover in areas identified as

Ngitili agroforestry (minimum 20 per cent canopy cover)in the Tanzania case study: This

scenario leads to considerable increases in tree cover and thus a reduction in water yield

totaling around 217 million m3 per year for all districts. Water quality however increases and

total carbon stocks increase with over 60 million tonnes of carbon overall. Soil erosion is

reduced by around 210,000 tonnes annually.

Figure 1 Ngitili agroforestry study districts, showing elevation within districts and location

in Tanzania

95

Figure 2 Baseline modelled run-o$ within sub-basins overlapping the Ngitili agroforestry

study districts in Tanzania

Lessons learned

Due to the complexity of agroforestry systems, identifying and modelling agroforestry using

optical remote sensing is di6cult without su6cient ground truth data. Definitions of agrofor-

estry systems and criteria used to classify them should be made more consistent, including

those criteria related to tree and canopy cover which can be assessed using remote sensing.

The interactions among ecosystem services and agriculture are complex. Spatially explicit

models, such as WaterWorld and others, can help simulate and visualise these complex

interactions and assess the outcomes of alternative future scenarios under which these

interactions take place.

What the findings of the studies point to is trade-o7s in certain scenarios, e.g. water yield

decreases versus water quality increases in Tanzania, which may hold di7erent values for

di7erent stakeholders at di7erent spatial scales and distances from where the services or

externalities originate. It is up to local decision-makers to determine the preferred options

for their stakeholders, but TEEBAgFood has a role in providing the scientific evidence base

and also guidance on appropriate policy instruments, i.e. demonstrating and capturing eco-

system values.

96

1 Gockowski, J. & Sonwa, D. (2011) ‘Cocoa Intensification Scenarios and their Predicted Impact on CO2 Emissions, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Livelihoods in the Guinea Rain Forest of West Africa’, Environmental Management, 48, 307-321.2 Hylander, K., Nemomissa, S., Delrue, J. & Enkosa, W. (2013) ‘E7ects of Co7ee Management on Deforestation Rates and Forest Integrity’, Conservation Biology, 27(5), 1031–1040.3 Norgrove L., & Hauser, S. (2013) ‘Carbon stocks in shaded Theobroma cacao farms and adjacent secondary forests of similar age in Cameroon’, Tropical Ecology, 54(1), 15-22.4 Gockowski, J. & Sonwa, D. (2011) ‘Cocoa Intensification Scenarios and their Predicted Impact on CO2 Emissions, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Livelihoods in the Guinea Rain Forest of West Africa’, Environmental Management, 48, 307-321.5 Mulligan, M. (2012) ‘WaterWorld: a self-parameterising, physically-based model for application in data-poor but problem-rich environments globally’, Hydrology Research, 44(5), 748–769.

Photo: ©Flickr Luis Ovalles

Notes

97

Notes

98

99

100

United Nations Environment Programme11-13 Chemin des Anémones1219 Châtelaine - Geneva (Switzerland)www.teebweb.org teeb@unep.orgTwitter @teeb4mefacebook.com/teeb4me

Making nature�s values visible